Jonas

MEMORANDUM **

Mutual of Enumclaw (Mutual) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and award of attorney’s fees in favor of Richard Jonas. We reverse. Mutual owed neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify. The suit brought against Jonas 1 was not for unfair competition, within the meaning of the policy; moreover, it fell within a policy exclusion.

I. Duty to Defend

A. Unfair Competition

The policy definition of “advertising injury” includes the term “unfair competition.” Mutual argues for a narrow definition of the term, based on the common law. 2 Jonas offers a broader definition, citing several cases in which various activities have been described as “unfair competition.” 3 Because either definition represents a “plausible interpretation of the term’s plain meaning,” 4 we must examine the possible meanings “in the light of the specific context in which the term is used in the policy.” 5 When we do so, the only plausible interpretation is Mutual’s. All the terms surrounding “unfair competition” involve intellectual property or the disparagement of one’s name. They do not involve, and are not closely related to, the misuse of trade secrets. Accordingly,…