Hartford denies obligation to defend Hulu in class action

April 23, 2012 by

Hartford Insurance has asked the California Superior Court to declare that it need not cover Hulu for a class action that claims the streaming website improperly tracks user activity.

Two class actions were filed against Hulu and consolidated, alleging that it “engaged in various ‘tracking exploits,’ which allowed it to track users’ online activity through the use of cookies and other identifiers placed on users’ computers, and that it obtained and misused users’ personal information.”

Hartford seeks a declaration that its “policies do not provide coverage for the claims against Hulu,” that it has no duty to defend Hulu, and that it “owes no indemnity and no duty to settle.”

Hartford claims it is not liable for defending the class action because the lawsuit does not allege “personal and advertising injury” or “property damage” within the meaning of  any of the insurance policies.

Hartford also claims that no coverage is availble under the 2009-2010 policies because the period covered by the complaint does not begin until March 2011.

Steve Larson
An experienced trial lawyer who handles both hourly and contingent fee cases, Steve has expertise in class actions, consumer cases, antitrust litigation, securities litigation, corporate disputes, intellectual property disputes, unfair competition claims, employment matters, and disputes involving family wealth. Steve regularly represents individuals and businesses in federal and state court and has obtained class-wide recovery in multiple class actions. A veteran practitioner, Steve's clients value his creative approach to resolving complex litigation matters.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.