Does an insurer have to defend an insured in a third party action for copyright infringement arising from the display of a copy of a painting in the lobby of a building the insureds owned?

10. Division Four of the Second District reached a similar conclusion in Ziman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1382. There the court considered whether the insurer was obligated to defend an insured in a third party action for copyright infringement arising from the display of a copy of a painting in the lobby of a building the insureds owned. Even though the painting was hung in the lobby while the insureds were showing the building to commercial real estate brokers in an effort to lease offices there, the court concluded that these activities did not constitute "advertising" under the terms of the policy. The court concluded the insured "could not reasonably have expected that the display of an unauthorized copy of a painting in the lobby of its building would come within advertising activities covered by their" policy. (Id. at p. 1389.)

10. Division Four of the Second District reached a similar conclusion in Ziman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1382. There the court considered whether the insurer was obligated to defend an insured in a third party action for copyright infringement arising from the display of a copy of a painting in the lobby of a building the insureds owned. Even though the painting was hung in the lobby while the insureds were showing the building to commercial real estate brokers in an effort to lease offices there, the court concluded that these activities did not constitute "advertising" under the terms of the policy. The court concluded the insured "could not reasonably have expected that the display of an unauthorized copy of a painting in the lobby of its building would come within advertising activities covered by their" policy. (Id. at p. 1389.)