PRACTICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
OLD DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Practice Management Associates sought insurance coverage under an advertising injury provision for claims by dissatisfied customers, arguing the claims constituted "unfair competition." The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of coverage, holding that "unfair competition" under Florida law requires injury to a competitor, not merely unfair conduct affecting customers.
The court held that "unfair competition" under Florida law refers unambiguously only to actions affecting competitors and requires injury to a competitor as an essential element. Customer dissatisfaction does not constitute unfair competition because it lacks the requisite element of competition or rivalry between business entities.
[1] The interpretation of an insurance policy provision governed by Florida law is determined by Florida case law.
[2] In Florida, "unfair competition" as an insured "advertising injury" under an insurance policy refers to actions affecting competitors.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The phrase "unfair competition" in the Policy refers unambiguously only to actions affecting competitors. This is consistent with the Florida case law that requires injury to a competitor as an essential element of any claim of unfair competition.”
Establishes that unfair competition requires injury to a competitor, not merely unfair conduct affecting customers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOld Dominion Insurance Company issued a policy to Practice Management Associates covering advertising injury, defined to include injuries arising from…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Insurance Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Old Dominion Insurance Company issued a policy of insurance to Practice Management Associates, Inc. in Florida where Practice Management Associates has its principal place of business which policy, among other things, insured against advertising injury. Such injury is defined in the policy as injury arising out of an offense committed during the policy period occurring in the course of the named insured’s advertising activities, if such injury arises out of libel, slander, defamation, violation of right of privacy, piracy, unfair competition, or infringement of copyright, title or slogan.
Practice Management Associates was sued across the country by dissatisfied customers and Old Dominion refused to defend and denied coverage. Practice Management Associates contends its customers’ dissatisfaction is covered under advertising injury as “unfair competition.” The trial court rejected this claim in ruling for Old Dominion, and we affirm.
Florida law controls in determining the meaning of the phrase “unfair competition.” Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Company v. August, 530 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1988); Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1988). Appellant’s reliance on decisions from California and elsewhere it has been sued are unavailing in construction of the language of this Florida contract. The trial court determined:
The phrase “unfair competition” in the Policy refers unambiguously only to actions affecting competitors. This is consistent with the Florida case law that requires injury to a competitor as an essential element of any claim of unfair competition. Even giving the phrase “unfair competition” its broadest ordinary meaning, the offense must include at least two elements, “unfairness” and “competition.” This requirement that the offense include an element of rivalry is consistent with the plain meaning of the words and with recognized definitions. To define “unfair competition” simply to mean any act of a commercial enterprise which is unfair would be to expand the phrase to include all alleged wrongdoing by business and therefore include all manner of breach of contract, torts and violations of statutes, administrative regulations and the like. Such a boundless definition is therefore unreasonable.
(Citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smart Commc'ns Holding, Inc. v. Correct Solutions, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2023)…and conveying exclusive rights that belong to Smart to other competitors,” (Doc. 93 at ¶ 236). (Doc. 214 at 17). Under Florida law, unfair competition requires injury to a competitor. See Prac. Management Assocs., Inc. v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 601 So. 2d 587, 587 (Fla 1st DCA 1992). As one Florida trial court explained in a decision that was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal: Even giving the phrase “unfair competition” its broadest ordinary meaning, the offense must include at least two…
-
ThermoLife Int'l LLC v. Vital Pharms. Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2020)…495.151 eliminated the common law requirement of showing competition or confusion as to the source of goods or services for a claim for injury to business reputation or trade name dilution); Prac. Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 601 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (specifying that unfair competition requires unfairness and competition and “requirement that the offense include an element of rivalry”); Home Design Services, Inc. v. Park Square Enterprises, Inc., No. 6:02-CV-637-ORL28JGG…
Authorities Cited
- Sturiano v. Martin Brooks Ad Litem of the Estate of Vito Sturiano, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1988)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. August, 530 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1988)