Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that insurance policy issued by defendant covered underlying class action alleging that plaintiff had violated antitrust provisions of Sherman Act by conspiring with others to fix price of eggs. Ct. rejected plaintiff's contention that policy's "personal and advertising injuries" provision covered underlying action where: (1) underlying antitrust complaint asserted only existence of conspiracy to fix price of eggs and failed to mention any advertising on part of anyone; (2) policy provisions did not cover either plaintiff's use of third-party's advertising idea that had consent of third-party or any advertising injury that was caused by or at direction of plaintiff with knowledge that plaintiff's actions would violate rights of others; and (3) instant parties did not intend to cover serious antitrust liability indirectly through advertising injury provision.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff-class action's motion to remand back to state court instant action alleging that defendant-insurance company charged consumers for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage that was worthless in light of policy's restrictions, where case had been removed under Class Action Fairness Act, and where plaintiff claimed that amount in controversy failed to meet $5 million jurisdictional threshold. Record showed that expense of restitution plus cost of prospective relief totaled $2 million, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it would be legally impossible to obtain $3 million in punitive damages based on $600,000 in alleged fraud losses.