United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
For Liberty University, Inc., formerly known as Liberty University School of Law, Plaintiff: Calvin Wooding Fowler, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, WILLIAMS MULLEN, RICHMOND, VA; Harold Edward Johnson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Williams Mullen - Richmond, Richmond, VA.
For Citizens Insurance Company of America, Hanover Insurance Company, Hanover American Insurance Company, Defendants: John Peter Malloy, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Robinson & Cole, LLP, Hartford, CT; Thomas Simpson Garrett, LEAD ATTORNEY, Harman Claytor Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, VA.
NORMAN K. MOON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This case comes before the Court upon the parties' cross motions for summary judgment (dockets nos. 39 and 42), filed on January 31, 2014. Liberty University, Inc. (" Plaintiff" or " Liberty" ) filed this action, seeking a declaration from this Court that Citizens Insurance Company of America, Hanover American Insurance Company, and Hanover Insurance Company (collectively, " Defendants" or " Hanover" ) have a duty to defend Liberty against claims made in an amended complaint by Janet Jenkins (" Jenkins Complaint" ) in the United States District Court in the District of Vermont, based on insurance policies issued by Hanover to Liberty. In its June 28, 2013 amended complaint (" Amended Complaint" ), Liberty seeks reimbursement
of the costs, fees, and expenses Hanover allegedly owes Liberty for breaching its duty to defend and indemnify  under the policies. Hanover disputes that Liberty is covered under the policies at issue. This Court heard argument on the fully-briefed motions for summary judgment on February 27, 2014.
Jurisdiction over this case is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Personal jurisdiction and venue are also proper in this Court. For the reasons stated below, I find Hanover has a duty to defend Liberty under all the insurance policies at issue, in relation to the Jenkins Complaint, filed on Nov. 26, 2012, in Jenkins v. Miller et al., No. 2:12-cv-00184-wks, in the District of Vermont. I will therefore grant Liberty's motion for summary judgment (docket no. 39) in full, and deny Hanover's motion for summary judgment (docket no. 42) in full.
Liberty University is a Virginia corporation that operates Liberty University and the Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Virginia. Citizens Insurance Company of America, Hanover American Insurance Company, and Hanover Insurance Company are corporations organized under the laws of Michigan and New Hampshire, which regularly conduct business in Virginia and have principal places of business in Michigan and Massachusetts. Each of these companies issued at least one insurance policy to Liberty that underlies this dispute.
Four  different policies issued to Liberty are at issue: (1) the Commercial General Liability (" CGL" ) Policy, number ZZR 4908180-00, issued by Hanover American Insurance Company for the policy period of February 1, 2009, to February 1, 2010; (2) the Umbrella Policy (" 2009-2010 Umbrella Policy" or " CGL Umbrella Policy" ), number UHR 4908175-00, issued by Hanover Insurance Company for the policy period of February 1, 2009, to February 1, 2010; (3) the School and Educators Legal Liability Endorsement (" SELL Endorsement" ) to the 2012-2013 commercial general liability policy, number ZBR-4908180-03, issued by Citizens Insurance Company of America for the policy period of February 1, 2012, to February 1, 2013; and (4) the 2012-2013 Umbrella Policy (" 2012-2013 Umbrella Policy" ), number UHR 4908175-03, issued by Hanover Insurance Company for the policy period of February 1, 2012, to February 1, 2013. Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 8-10; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ ¶ 8-9.
The 2009-2010 CGL Policy provides coverage for claims made against Liberty for " bodily injury," " property damage," and " personal and advertising injury" arising from an " occurrence" taking place during the policy period. Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 10; J.A. Ex. B. The CGL Umbrella Policy is effective for the same dates as the CGL Policy and provides coverage for " the 'ultimate net loss' in excess of the 'retained limit'" for the same eventualities: bodily injury, property damage, and personal and advertising injury, defined in the same way as in the CGL Policy. CGL Umbrella Policy, J.A. Ex. C, atH-0015--H-0016, H-0018--H-0019, H-0027--H-0028, H-0031. Since the CGL and CGL Umbrella Policies apply here to the same eventualities, with
the same exclusions and definitions, Liberty and Hanover have adopted their arguments for the CGL Policy and rely on those arguments as to whether the CGL Umbrella Policy covers Liberty and creates a duty for Hanover to defend. See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 21; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. 18; Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 20.
The 2012-2013 SELL Endorsement covers claims made against Liberty that were first asserted in the relevant policy period and based on " wrongful acts" by Liberty. Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 10; J.A. Ex. D. As with the CGL Umbrella Policy, the parties rely on their arguments regarding the SELL Endorsement as to whether the SELL Endorsement to the 2012-2013 Umbrella Policy provides coverage for any " wrongful acts" by Liberty. See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 25; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. 31; Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 23-24; J.A. Ex. E, at H-0325--H-0326, H-0329--H0330, H-0338--H-0341, H-0343, H-0358--H-0360, H-0371.
The parties have summarized the facts pertinent to this case in their motions for summary judgment, and they were enumerated in the Jenkins Complaint. In 2002, Janet Jenkins (" Jenkins" ) and Lisa Miller (" Miller" ) were united in a same sex civil union in Vermont when their daughter Isabella Miller-Jenkins (" Isabella" ) was born. Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 6; Jenkins Compl. ¶ 19. In 2004, Miller converted to Christianity, began to believe that " homosexuality was sinful and that Isabella should be shielded from exposure to the 'lifestyle,'" and moved with Isabella to Winchester, Virginia. Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 7; Jenkins Compl. ¶ 20. Miller sought to legally dissolve her civil union with Jenkins in 2004 and between 2004 and 2009, Miller and Jenkins " were engaged in litigation regarding their respective parental rights and custody over Isabella." Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 7; Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 19-20. During this time, Miller repeatedly violated the orders of courts in Vermont and Virginia that granted Jenkins certain custody and visitation rights.
Beginning in 2004, Liberty University and its related law firm, Liberty Counsel, LLC, began to represent Miller in her custody and dissolution disputes. The Jenkins Complaint alleged that Miller's " lead attorneys were Dean of the [Liberty] Law School Mathew Staver, and Rena Lindevaldsen, a law professor there." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 22. In April 2007, Miller and Jenkins' civil union was dissolved after a final, contested hearing at which Miller swore to " comply with court orders" regarding Jenkins' contact with Isabella. Jenkins Compl. ¶ 23. Miller complied with many such court orders throughout 2007, but in the spring of 2008 she moved with Isabella to Lynchburg, Virginia, joined Thomas Road Baptist Church (" TRBC" ), and thereafter was " counseled by church members and pastors not to allow contact between Isabella and Janet Jenkins." Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 24-25. TRBC allegedly provided Miller " with housing, a job [at Liberty Christian Academy,] and a vehicle." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 25. According to the Jenkins Complaint, " Liberty University is held out as a 'related ministry' of Thomas Road Baptist Church," but the church is a separate corporation in Virginia. Jenkins Compl. ¶ 16.
At TRBC, Miller developed a friendship with TRBC member Linda Wall, who allegedly agreed Miller should " flee with Isabella" and later helped to organize the " Protect Isabella Coalition [(" PIC" )] . . . to prevent court ordered contact between
Isabella Miller-Jenkins and Janet Jenkins." Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 22, 26-27. " Upon information and belief," the Jenkins Complaint alleged that " President of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell, Jr. donated substantial sums to the PIC to enable it to produce television and radio commercials condemning the parent-child contact between Janet Jenkins and Isabella Miller-Jenkins as an act of tyranny." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 27. Miller's " attorneys had established a Facebook site and other social media to solicit donations to their organization on behalf of Lisa Miller, and the Facebook site was also used to promote the activities of Lisa Miller and the PIC." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 27.
In 2009, after Miller defied various court orders regarding visitation between Jenkins and Isabella, motions were filed and hearings were held in the Vermont and Virginia courts on the future status of Isabella's custody and on whether to hold Miller in contempt. Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 28-31. Allegedly, " by the late summer of 2009, Lisa Miller and her co-conspirators had devised a plan to kidnap Isabella and avoid detection by infiltrating the Beachy Amish-Mennonite Christian Brotherhood to enable [Miller's] abduction of Isabella." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 34. On August 25, 2009, a Virginia court held Miller in contempt and " fined her $100 per day for any future days of missed contact" between Isabella and Jenkins. Jenkins Compl. ¶ 31. Miller appeared at the hearing and held a press conference, at which her attorneys Staver and Lindevaldsen were present. On September 4, 2009, after a hearing at which Miller's attorneys appeared by telephone, a Vermont court ordered contact between Jenkins and Isabella from September 25, 2009 until September 27, 2009. Jenkins Compl. ¶ 32.
Beginning in late May 2009, Miller allegedly began making contact with individual defendants who were involved with Response Unlimited, Inc., and the Beachy Amish-Mennonite Christian Brotherhood (hereinafter " Brotherhood" ) to arrange transportation and living arrangements for herself and Isabella outside of the United States. This included initially making contact in May 2009 with Philip Zodhiates (" Zodhiates" ) at Response Unlimited, Inc., and on September 21, 2009, being transported to the Canadian border, in disguise, by Zodhiates. Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 29, 34-36. Zodhiates allegedly also conspired with the Brotherhood to purchase plane tickets and arrange transportation from Canada to Nicaragua, where Miller and Isabella would take up secret residence with the Brotherhood. Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 36-39. Jenkins alleged she had not seen or heard from Isabella since Isabella was taken in 2009. Jenkins Compl. ¶ 40.
None of the individual defendants who allegedly aided Miller in taking Isabella to Nicaragua were alleged to have been acting as agents or employees of Liberty University. The Jenkins Complaint drew
a few connections between these defendants and Liberty University. First, although the complaint acknowledged that Staver and Lindevaldsen " have at all times maintained that they did not know [Miller's] location . . . [and] that she simply stopped communicating with them and disappeared," the Jenkins Complaint suggested that Staver, and perhaps Lindevaldsen, communicated with Philip Zodhiates as Zodhiates returned from taking Miller and Isabella to the Canadian border:
[P]hone records . . . showed phone calls made from Philip Zodhiates's cell phone between 1:28pm and 1:30pm on September 22, 2009, to a cell phone with an Orlando area code that is registered to Liberty Counsel, a landline registered to Liberty Counsel, and a landline registered to Liberty University. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University, splits his time between Lynchburg, Virginia and Orlando, Florida. At the time that the calls were made, Philip Zodhiates was still en route back to Virginia after depositing Lisa Miller and Isabella near the Canadian border.
Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 57-58.
The Jenkins Complaint also alleged on information and belief that " law school employees who spoke to Victoria [Hyden/Zhodiates] about Lisa Miller's whereabouts were too intimidated to come forward to law enforcement for fear of angering Dean Staver [but not Liberty] and losing their jobs." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 59. Hyden/Zhodiates allegedly knew Miller's whereabouts, but was still employed by Liberty Law School as of November 2012. In contrast, while Miller and Isabella were missing, " Dean Staver fired several members of the admissions and financial aid departments who were under his supervision," and Staver and Lindevaldsen pursued Miller's appeals through 2010, " stating that they had advance instructions from Lisa Miller as to her wishes for the ongoing litigation." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 59.
Otherwise, the Jenkins Complaint tied Liberty to Isabella's disappearance through general allegations directed at all of the defendants and through specific allegations involving " Victoria Hyden f/k/a Victoria Zhodiates" (hereinafter " Victoria Hyden" or " Hyden" ). Jenkins Compl. ¶ 13. Victoria Hyden was identified as an " employee and agent of both Liberty University, Inc., and its related ministry Thomas Road Baptist Church, Inc., and Response Unlimited, Inc.," Zhodiates' daughter, " an employee of Response Unlimited, Inc., and also a 'student worker' at Liberty University." Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 13, 41, 49. The Jenkins Complaint alleged on information and belief that in 2009, Hyden:
[S]ent an email . . . to her coworkers at the law school requesting donations for
supplies to send to Lisa Miller to enable her to remain outside the country. Lisa Miller's attorney, Matthew Staver was the Dean of the Law school and Ms. Zodhiates's boss. . . . On September 20, 2009, both Philip Zodhiates and Victoria Hyden called Lisa Miller's father, Terry Miller in Tennessee to assist in arranging her and Isabella's transportation from a Walmart parking lot in Lynchburg, Virginia to Waynesboro, Virginia, from whence they would depart for Canada and Nicaragua the next day.
Jenkins Compl. ¶ 41. Allegedly, Victoria Hyden also " knew of Lisa Miller's whereabouts." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 59.
The Jenkins Complaint also alleged that Staver and Lindevaldsen publicly advocated for Miller outside their roles as legal counsel. Lindevaldsen allegedly founded and administrated a " Facebook site called 'Only One Mommy' . . . to solicit donations and support for the case." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 43. " [Staver and Lindevaldsen] also routinely instructed their Law School students that the correct course of action for a person in Lisa Miller's situation would be to engage in 'civil disobedience' and defy court orders." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 47.
After alleging these activities by Staver and Lindevaldsen, the Jenkins Complaint described public statements made by pastors and members of TRBC regarding civil disobedience and the Miller case, and concluded:
Hence, Defendants TRBC and its related ministry Liberty University encouraged its agents to disregard state laws governing parental rights, particularly Vermont's law giving rights to members of same-sex families. The TRBC and Liberty University through its public declaration promoted, condoned and explicitly ratified its agent's tortuous, racketeering activity. These agents and employees have followed this direction, making TRBC and Liberty University liable in respondeat superior for the consequences.
Jenkins Compl. ¶ 49.
Finally, Lindevaldsen published a book entitled Only One Mommy: A Woman's Battle for Her Life, Her Daughter, and Her Freedom: The Lisa Miller Story, about Miller and the case, " citing portions of Lisa Miller's personal diaries which Lindevaldsen has stated were entrusted to her before Lisa Miller disappeared." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 60. Lindevaldsen and Staver promoted this book on radio and television, and Lindevaldsen publicly criticized law enforcement and the federal government for their pursuit of Miller and Isabella. Jenkins Compl. ¶ 60.
Based on these allegations, the Jenkins Complaint then generally alleged that Liberty conspired to kidnap Isabella, racketeered to kidnap Isabella, and conspired to violate Jenkins and Isabella's civil rights:
Based on the foregoing, all of the Defendants named herein, in both their individual capacities and as agents of TRBC, Liberty University, Response Unlimited, Inc., and CAM are liable for conspiring with Lisa Miller to kidnap Isabella Miller-Jenkins, assure her continued detention outside the State of Vermont, and for conspiring with Kenneth Miller to participate in the affairs of the [Brotherhood] through a pattern of racketeering activity. Defendants are also liable for conspiring to violate Janet Jenkins' and Isabella Miller Jenkins' rights to a parent-child relationship on account of Isabella having two mothers instead of a mother and a father . . . .
Jenkins Compl. ¶ 62. In each count, the Jenkins Complaint alleged that either Lisa Miller or Kenneth Miller " did conspire with, and was aided and abetted by[, inter alia, ] . . . Victoria Hyden, f/k/a Victoria
Zodhiates, individually and as agent of Response Unlimited, Inc,. [sic] and Liberty University, . . . Thomas Road Baptist Church and its related ministry Liberty University." Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 64, 72, 75. Liberty was thus generally implicated alone and through its alleged agent Hyden, in Count I (Intentional Tort of Kidnapping), Count III (Violation of RICO), and Count IV (Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights).
As a result of these legal violations, the Jenkins Complaint alleged that Jenkins suffered " extreme emotional distress and the loss of her daughter's companionship," has " incurred legal fees and lost business as a result of having to close her daycare center in order to attend contempt and other Court hearings, an[d] meetings with law enforcement necessary to locate her daughter . . . [and] has also been unable to collect court ordered fines." Jenkins Compl. ¶ ¶ 78-79.
Isabella was alleged to have suffered " emotional distress as a result of the abduction," including from " living in isolation and having a difficult time," with her " freedom of movement severely restricted by the [Brotherhood]," and experiencing a " standard of living . . . far below what even the poorest children in the United States experience." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 80. Isabella also allegedly suffered " the loss of emotional and financial support from her mother, Janet Jenkins," including " child support from one or both parents based on her needs and best interests," which used to be " $250 per month." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 81. The Jenkins Complaint also alleged in 2012 that Isabella was " currently being deprived of an education, medical and dental care and the support of her extended family, including grandparents Ruth and Claude Jenkins. All of these factors currently and will in the future result in an injury to Isabella's property and future business and employment." Jenkins Compl. ¶ 81.
III. Legal Standard
A. Summary Judgment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that a court should grant summary judgment (or partial summary judgment) " if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." " As to materiality . . . [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In order to preclude summary judgment, the dispute about a material fact must be " 'genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. See also JKC Holding Co. v. Washington Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir. 2001). However, if the evidence of a genuine issue of material fact " is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In considering a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, a court must view the record as a whole and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir. 1994).
When faced with cross-motions for summary judgment, the standard is the same. The court must consider " each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law." Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523
(4th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted). If the court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact, both motions must be denied. " But if there is no genuine issue and one or the other party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law, the court will render judgment." Trigo v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co., 755 F.Supp.2d 749, 752 (W.D. Va. 2010).
B. Virginia Insurance Law
This insurance contract dispute is before the Court under its diversity jurisdiction, and therefore state law will apply. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Virginia is the forum state, so its choice-of-law rules govern and mandate that " generally, the law of the place where an insurance contract is written and delivered controls issues as to coverage." Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Block Roofing Corp., 754 F.Supp.2d 819, 822 (E.D. Va. 2010) (citing Capitol Environmental Servs., Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., 536 F.Supp.2d 633, 639 (E.D. Va. 2008) and Buchanan v. Doe, 246 Va. 67, 431 S.E.2d 289, 291, 9 Va. Law Rep. 1446 (Va. 1993)). Here, the parties do not dispute that the contract was delivered in Virginia, nor that Virginia law governs this dispute over its terms.
Virginia applies the " Eight Corners Rule" to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured. This rule " requires a court to compare the four corners of the insurance policy against the four corners of the underlying complaint." Id. at 822-23. A duty to defend " arises whenever the complaint [against the insured] alleges facts and circumstances, some of which, if proved, fall within the risk covered by the policy" or would be " potentially covered by the policy." See id.; VEPCA v. Northbrook Property & Cas. Ins., 252 Va. 265, 475 S.E.2d 264, 265 (Va. 1996) (quoting Lerner v. Safeco, 219 Va. 101, 245 S.E.2d 249, 251 (Va. 1978)).
A burden-shifting framework governs duty to defend disputes. First, the insured must establish a prima facie case that coverage should be triggered. Block, 754 F.Supp.2d at 823 (citing Maryland Cas. Co. v. Cole, 156 Va. 707, 158 S.E. 873, 876 (Va. 1931)). " Yet this burden is not especially onerous since the insurer must defend unless it clearly appears from the initial pleading the insurer would not be liable under the policy contract for any judgment based upon the allegations." Id. If the insured meets that initial burden, the insurer must then prove any policy exclusions should apply to bar coverage. Id.
Finally, courts construing insurance contracts in Virginia must " give the language its plain and ordinary meaning and enforce the policy as written," if that language " is clear and unambiguous." Id. Policy provisions are not ambiguous simply because the parties disagree about their meanings, but only if the language is " capable of more than one reasonable meaning," in context. Id. For unambiguous provisions, " [w]ords that the parties used are normally given their usual, ordinary and popular meaning," such that " [n]o word or clause in the contract will be treated as meaningless if a reasonable meaning can be given to it," with the " presumption that the parties have not used words needlessly." City of Chesapeake v. States Self-Insurers Risk Retention Grp, Inc., 271 Va. 574, 628 S.E.2d 539, 541 (Va. 2006). In Virginia, any ambiguities must be construed against the insurer. Block, 754 F.Supp.2d at 823 (citing Craig v. Dye, 259 Va. 533, 526 S.E.2d 9 (Va. 2000)). Exclusionary language is also " construed most strongly against the insurer and the burden is upon the insurer to prove that an exclusion applies. Reasonable exclusions
not in conflict with statute will be enforced, but it is incumbent upon the insurer to employ exclusionary language that is clear and unambiguous." Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 238 Va. 543, 385 S.E.2d 583, 585, 6 Va. Law Rep. 737 (Va. 1989) (citations omitted).
The parties do not dispute the content of the Jenkins Complaint or the content of the insurance policies at issue. Whether these undisputed material facts give rise to Hanover's duty to defend is a matter of law, which this Court will interpret in the context of the Jenkins Complaint and the contracts at issue.
A. 2009-2010 CGL and CGL Umbrella Policies
The CGL Policy provides coverage for claims made against Liberty for bodily injury, property damage, and personal or advertising injury arising from an occurrence that took place during the policy period, from February 2009 through February 2010. J.A. Ex. B. Under the CGL Policy, " bodily injury" is defined as " bodily injury, disability, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including death resulting from any of these at any time. 'Bodily injury' includes mental anguish or other mental injury resulting from bodily injury." CGL Policy, J.A. Ex. B, at HAIC-0189. " Property damage" means " [p]hysical injury to tangible property, including all resulting use of that property," or " [l]oss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured." CGL Policy, J.A. Ex. B, at HAIC-0210--HAIC-0211. " 'Occurrence' means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." CGL Policy, J.A. Ex. B, at HAIC-0197. The CGL Policy excludes from coverage " 'Bodily injury' or 'property damage' expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. " CGL Policy, J.A. Ex. B, at HAIC-0198.
The CGL Policy also provides coverage for " sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of 'personal and advertising injury' to which [the CGL Policy] applies." CGL Policy, J.A. Ex. B, at HAIC-0201. " Personal and advertising injury" must be " caused by an offense arising out of [Liberty's] business," defined as " injury including consequential 'bodily injury', arising out of one or more of the following offenses:"
a. False arrest, detention, or imprisonment;
b. Malicious prosecution;
c. The wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf o fits owner, landlord or lessor;
d. Oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or ...