"As Seen on TV" — Insurer Must Defend Well Known Television Marketer in Data Privacy Suit
Time 2 Minute Read

As reported on the Hunton Insurance Recovery blog, in a June 1, 2016 decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reminded retailers and product manufacturers to look to their insurance coverages when defending against consumer class actions. In National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford et al. v. E. Mishan & Sons Inc., the Second Circuit required CNA Financial Corporation to defend E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.(“Emson”) – best known for its “As Seen on TV” products – in two class actions alleging a conspiracy to trap customers into recurring credit card charges and that Emson sold private consumer information that it obtained through its product sales.

The class lawsuits included counts for fraud by omission, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of state and federal consumer protection laws. Emson’s general liability insurers refused to defend – a decision with which the federal district court agreed.

The Second Circuit reversed, rejecting the district court’s finding that each count was based on a “knowing violation” and concluding that Emson could be found liable without evidence that it knowingly violated consumers’ rights to privacy, thereby avoiding any policy exclusion.

The Second Circuit also held that the insurers could not evade their defense obligation based on the policy’s breach of contract exclusions, where less than all counts potentially came within the scope of that exclusion. The court noted the general rule that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify, such that the insurer must defend even non-covered claims if other claims may be covered by the policy. Thus, because the unjust enrichment counts were likely covered by the policy, the insurer had to defend both class actions.

The case of Emson is a reminder that even in instances of cyber liability, legacy general liability insurance still may be a valuable asset to retailers and product manufacturers. As cyber coverage products continue to evolve, scopes of coverage will vary from form to form, making it all the more important for these policyholders to consider in any breach scenario whether any of the potential liability comes within the coverages traditionally afforded under general liability insurance. Retailers who regularly handle customer data should consult with coverage counsel versed in both general liability and evolving cyber coverages when assessing any potential cyber-related claim or coverage.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court ruling held that AI-generated documents prepared by a defendant and later shared with legal counsel were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page