Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Company

MEMORANDUM

The district court granted summary judgment to Steadfast Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction over Jarrow Formulas, Inc.’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and review the “district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Dawson v. Entek Int’l, 630 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir.2011).

The sole issue is whether the complaint in the underlying lawsuit between Bio Minerals n.v. and Jarrow potentially stated a claim for product disparagement and thus triggered Steadfast’s duty to defend. See Cort v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Cos., 311 F.3d 979 , 983 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend, the court compares the complaint to the policy terms).

Even in light of the broad duty of insurers to defend, see id., the district court did not err in concluding that Steadfast appropriately denied coverage. The complaint’s allegations that Jarrow “passed off’ its product to consumers do not involve false or misleading statements about Bio Minerals’ product. See Microtec Research, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.1994). Jarrow never mentioned the Bio Minerals supplement in its advertising, nor did Jarrow suggest that…