CGLI policies have following trigger for advertising injury:
d. Oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services;
These policies usually do not clearly define what exactly "disparages" means. So I started to search around and came across HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v SWIFT DISTRIBUTION, INC, where California court defines disparagement as:
We hold that a claim of disparagement requires a plaintiff to show a false or misleading statement that (1) specifically refers to the plaintiff‘s product or business and (2) clearly derogates that product or business.
So in a hypothetical scenario where plaintiff/claimant is accusing defendant/insured of misleading plaintiff's customers that appointments from now on must be scheduled with defendant (and not plaintiff's general manager) - would that qualify as disparagement?
DEFENDANT'S AGENT began to tell customers assigned to him for services at PLAINTIFF that in the future, the customer should call DEFENDANT'S AGENT directly on his personal cell phone so that DEFENDANT'S AGENT could ensure that future appointments of PLAINTIFF'S clients would be handled by DEFENDANT'S AGENT and bypass PLAINTIFF'S GENERAL MANAGER responsible for scheduling appointments. In addition to controlling the appointments that would be serviced by DEFENDANT'S AGENT, DEFENDANT'S AGENT also solicited and instructed PLAINTIFF'S customers to instead go to DEFENDANT's location where DEFENDANT could deny all profits to PLAINTIFF.
It seems that there is a falsehood as defendant is confusing plaintiff's customers on how to schedule appointments from now on (disparagement of business title?). And it detracted customers from plaintiff's business.
Court ruling for similar case would be appreciated.