Mohammed A. HAMEID, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE OF HARTFORD, Defendant and Respondent.
Supreme Court of California.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
July 3, 2003.
Rehearing Denied September 10, 2003.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Daniel S. Klein, Irvine; Law Offices of Barnard F. Klein and Barnard F. Klein, Trabuco Canyon, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Homampour & Associates and Arash Homampour, Beverly Hills, for Coast to Coast Computer Products as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Gauntlett & Associates, David A. Gauntlett and Eric R. Little, Irvine, for United Policyholders as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Hawkins, Schnabel, Lindahl & Beck, Lindahl, Schnabel, Kardassakis & Beck, Jon Kardassakis, Jeffrey D. Wolfe, Los Angeles, and Kurt G. Gresenz for Defendant and Respondent.
Nielsen, Haley & Abbott, James C. Nielsen and Jennifer S. Cohn for United National Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Wiley Rein & Fielding, Laura A. Foggan, John C. Yang, Thomas S. Garrett, Washington, D.C.; Sinnott, Dito, Moura & Puebla, Randolph P. Sinnott, Los Angeles, and J. Karren Baker, San Francisco, for the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Law Offices of Michael A. Mathews and Michael A. Mathews for National Association of Independent Insurers and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Horvitz & Levy, Frederic D. Cohen and Peter Abrahams, Encino, for American International Companies Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Selman Breitman, Neil H. Selman, Jan L. Pocaterra and Lynette Klawon, Los Angeles, for Scottsdale Insurance Company Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Supreme Court of California.
CHIN, J.
We granted review to determine a limited issue: When a plaintiff alleges in an underlying complaint that an insured defendant took a competitor's customer list and solicited customers from it, was the defendant's act a misappropriation of advertising ideas that gave rise to the insurer's duty to defend defendant under the "advertising injury" provision of the commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy? (On May 15, 2002, we filed the order specifically...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
