What makes for a more interesting insurance case than a fight between surviving members of the Doors leading to a coverage dispute over the duty to defend?  Applying California case law, which is very similar to Hawaii case law, the Ninth Circuit recently determined St. Paul had a duty to defend a surviving of the Doors.

A founding member of the Doors, Raymond Manzarek, was sued in state court by former drummer, John Densmore, and the parents of Jim Morrison for infringing on the “The Doors” name in conjunction with a planned international tour.  Manzarek was found liable on some claims, but no damages were awarded.  Defense fees exceeded $3 million, however.

St. Paul refused to defend under a comprehensive liability policy issued to Manzarek.  Although the policy covered liability for advertising injury, St. Paul determined coverage was eliminated under a Field of Entertainment Limitation Endorsement (“FELE”).  The endorsement excluded coverage for the creation, production, publication, distribution, or advertising of media material. 

Manzarek sued St. Paul.  The District Court found the FELE clearly excluded coverage, and granted St. Paul’s Motion to Dismiss without allowing leave to amend.

The Ninth Circuit reversed.  The underlying suit was silent about what type of products and merchandise that Manzarek produced and marketed. The FELE excluded coverage for media related material, but coverage for advertising injury could still exist if Manzarek marketed a line of t-shirts or electric guitars with “The Doors” logo or Morrison’s likeness on them.  The District Court also abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice and not allowing Manzarek to amend his complaint.

Given its similar case law, it is safe to assume the Hawaii Supreme Court would have also found a duty to defend.