Ennen

MEMORANDUM *

The insurance policies do not cover the judgment against Wunda Weve. California law resolves ambiguities in favor of the insured, see Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta, 30 Cal.3d 800, 807-08 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 628 ,, 640 P.2d 764 (1982), but the policies are not susceptible to the Ennens’ construction. The judgment is indeed a liability Wunda Weve is “legally obligated to pay as damages.” Vandenberg v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 815, 841 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 982 P.2d 229 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). The policies’ coverage, however, extends only to “injury arising out of ... [mjisappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business.” Wunda Weve’s breach of an implied-in-fact contract was not misappropriation. “Misappropriation” is the wrongful taking of property, see Lebas Fashion Imps, of U.S.A., Inc. v. ITT Hartford Ins. Group, 50 Cal.App.4th 548, 562 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 36 *49 (1996), not mere failure to pay a debt for property lawfully obtained. Wunda Weve was held liable, not for wrongfully taking the Ennens’ advertising idea, but for failing to perform its financial obligations.

That Wunda Weve may never have intended to perform is irrelevant. 1…