|
2008 REVIEW DENIED Duplication of plaintiff's children's program on videotapes already containing pornographic scenes, some of which remained visible at the end of plaintiff's program, did not result in damage to plaintiff's tangible physical property and was therefore excluded from coverage under the duplicator's CGL policy; the finding of a court that had awarded plaintiff damages against the duplicator, labeling the recovery "property damage," was not res judicata in the subsequent coverage dispute.CitationSCHAEFER/KARPF v CNA (Kiddie Porn) 64 CA4 1306 [See: InsC 11580; Fresno Economy v USF&G 76 CA3 272]
|
|
