Rombe Corp. v. Allied Insurance

In Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of Hartford (2003) 31 Cal.4th 16, 24 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 401 , 71 P.3d 761 ] (Hameid), the court considered the scope of the term “advertising” as it is used in standard commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies. The court found that “advertising” and “solicitation” are mutually exclusive terms. Because CGL policies do not cover liability incurred for acts of solicitation, the court found that a claim arising solely out of the appellant’s solicitation of individuals was not covered by the appellant’s CGL policy.

Here we consider a variant of the CGL policy, which, unlike the policy considered in Hameid , contained the following definition of advertisement: “ ‘Advertisement’ means a notice that is broadcast or published to the general public or specific market segments about your goods, products or services for the purpose of attracting customers or supporters.” Contrary to appellant’s argument, this definition, while not considered by the court in Hameid , did not expand the scope of the policy’s advertising coverage to include personal promotion or solicitation of business.

Because the record here does not disclose the occurrence…