In “The Hanover Insurance Company v. Urban Outfitters, Inc”, the Navajo Nation had

sued Urban Outfitters for infringement of its trademark, with the complaint alleging that the

infringement had taken place since 2009. It is noted that Hanover, on the other hand, had offered

Urban Outfitters commercial general liability insurance cover from 7th July 2010, a coverage that

encompassed advertising and personal injury. This policy, however, excluded liability emanating

from written or oral publication of material that was first published prior to the start of the policy

period. A District Court in Pennsylvania ruled for Hanover’s motion that the “prior publication”

exclusion was encompassing the resultant injuries given that the alleged injuries had …show more content…
While this case has already been decided, it is imperative that one examines the efficacy

of the ruling. This may be accomplished through the examination of the insurable interest. It is

well acknowledged that entities that would not suffer any financial loss from a particular event

would not have any insurable interest and, therefore, cannot buy insurance policies aimed at

covering the event. While it may be argued that the insurance company had entered into contract

with Urban Outfitters or offered coverage to them in bad faith, it is noteworthy that the insured

had the duty to read the contents of the policy. Indeed, the 3rd Circuit noted that the applicable

state law required it to examine the policy’s language, as well as the complaint’s allegations so

as to determine the existence of a duty to defend. There were clear allegations by the Navajo

Nation to the effect that the infringement by Urban Outfitters started in March 2009, in which

LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF RISK AND INSURANCE

case Hanover did not owe the company any duty unless the complaint revolved around “fresh

wrongs” that took place after the policy from Hanover took