Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

AU Elecs., Inc. v. Harleysville Group, Inc.

AU Elecs., Inc. v. Harleysville Group, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

March 10, 2015, Decided; March 10, 2015, Filed

13 C 5947

Opinion

 [*806]  Memorandum Opinion and Order

This insurance coverage dispute pits AU Electronics, Adnan Vadria, and Umair Yasin (collectively, "AU," unless context requires otherwise) against Harleysville Group and Harleysville Lake States Insurance Company (together, "Harleysville," unless context requires otherwise). In the underlying suits, Sprint and T-Mobile, [**2]  the large wireless network providers, alleged  [*807]  that AU bought cellphones in bulk, "unlocked" them so that they could be used on any cellular network, and then resold them overseas. Sprint Nextel Corp. v. AU Elecs., Inc., No. 12 C 9095 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 13, 2012); T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. AU Elecs., Inc., No. 12 C 10046 (N.D. Ill. filed Dec. 18, 2012); see Docs. 100-3, 100-4 (the complaints in those suits). Both suits settled. Doc. 120 at ¶¶ 45-46; see Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, Sprint Nextel Corp. v. AU Elecs., Inc., No. 12 C 9095, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8557 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2014), ECF No. 210; Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. AU Elecs., Inc., No. 12 C 10046, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8558 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2014), ECF No. 201.

Well after the underlying suits commenced and before they settled, AU brought this case, which alleges that Harleysville breached its duty to defend and indemnify AU in those suits. Doc. 1. Harleysville answered and counterclaimed for a declaration that it owed no such duty. Docs. 9, 18. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Docs. 93, 99. AU's motion is denied, and Harleysville's is granted.

Background

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

82 F. Supp. 3d 805 *; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28887 **

AU ELECTRONICS, INC., ADNAN VADRIA, and UMAIR YASIN, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, vs. HARLEYSVILLE GROUP, INC., Defendant, and HARLEYSVILLE LAKE STATES INSURANCE CO., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

Subsequent History: Appeal dismissed by AU Elecs., Inc. v. Harleysville Grp., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22996 (7th Cir. Ill., July 9, 2015)

Prior History: AU Elecs., Inc. v. Harleysville Group, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72862 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2014)

CORE TERMS

insurer, coverage, trade dress, phones, Marks, complaints, notice, no duty, advertising, infringement, indemnify, allegations, suits, trademark, package, lawsuits, trademark infringement, underlying suit, duty to defend, customers, advertising injury, summary judgment, Defendants', carriers, Electronics, quotation, summary judgment motion, counterclaimed, cellphones, settlement

Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Motions for Summary Judgment, Cross Motions, Judgments, Evidentiary Considerations, Insurance Law, Obligations of Parties, Insurers, Allegations in Complaints, Business Insurance, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Duty to Defend, Business & Corporate Compliance, Entertainment Industry Falsity & Performance Misattribution, Trade Dress Protection, Causes of Action, Trademark Law, Infringement Actions, General Overview, Causes of Action Involving Trademarks, Remedies, Declaratory Judgments, Torts, Business Torts, Unfair Business Practices, Indemnification, Liability & Performance Standards, Notice to Insurers, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Reasonableness