Proxima Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co.

26 F.3d 132 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. PROXIMA CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey Corporation; St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, a Minnesota Corporation; Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-56320. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1994. Decided June 7, 1994. 1 Before: BROWNING and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and FONG, * District Judge 2 MEMORANDUM ** I. DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT 3 The district court did not err in dismissing Proxima's complaint for failure to allege coverage under the policy's advertising injury provision. The express language of the policy states that for coverage to exist, 1) the injury must be caused by an offense specifically enumerated in the "advertising injury" provision and 2) the commission of the enumerated offense must "result" from the insured's advertising. Proxima asserts the charged conduct falls within the…