California Supreme Court Watch

#19-33 Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., S253593. (9th Cir. No. 17-16452; 913 F.3d 923; Northern District of California No. 5:17-cv-00447-NC) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This case concerns an insurer’s duty under state law to defend its insured against a claim that the insured violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court restated the question in this case as follows: “Does a commercial general liability insurance policy that provides coverage for ‘personal injury,’ defined as ‘injury . . . arising out of . . . [o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy,’ and that has been modified by endorsement with regard to advertising injuries, trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the insured against a claim that the insured violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text message advertisements that did not reveal any private information?”

Request for certification granted: 3/27/2019

Case fully briefed: 10/17/2019

Cause argued and submitted: 9/06/2022

Opinion filed: 11/17/2022

See the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order.

See the Opening Brief on the Merits.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 58.)

“Many commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies provide coverage against liability for privacy violations, but it is not always clear what specific types of privacy violations are covered. The insurance policy at issue here, for example, provides liability coverage for injuries ‘arising out of . . . [o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.’ The question we must resolve is whether this language provides liability coverage for right-of-seclusion violations litigated under the TCPA. We conclude that it does, assuming such coverage is consistent with the insured’s reasonable expectations.”

Justice Jenkins authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Guerrero concurred.