# Bank of the West v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · July 30, 1992 · 2 Cal. 4th 1254

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790847

## Case

- **Full name:** BANK OF THE WEST, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent; INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY Et Al., Real Parties in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 30, 1992
- **Citations:** 2 Cal. 4th 1254; 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 538; 92 Daily Journal DAR 10597; 833 P.2d 545; 61 U.S.L.W. 2102; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6640; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3489
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Mosk, Panelli
- **Cited by:** 999 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by FileNet Corp. v. Chubb Corp., 324 N.J. Super. 476 (1997).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790847

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the tort provided “an equitable remedy against the wrongful exploita- tion of trade names and common law trademarks that were not otherwise entitled to legal protection” and that the expansion 1702 SYBERSOUND RECORDS v. UAV CORP. of unfair competition law is pr…
- explaining that the tort provided “an equitable remedy against the wrongful exploitation of trade names and common law trademarks that were not otherwise entitled to legal protection” and that the expansion of unfair competition law is primarily based in statutes
- holding that an insured’s payments for violations of the state Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203, are not insurable “damages” under the insured’s advertising injury insurance policies
- stating that a term is generally considered to be ambiguous if two reasonable yet differing definitions can be applied
- stating that “policy terms must be read in their ordinary and popular sense” (internal quotation marks omitted)

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it holds that disgorgement of sums obtained in violation of section 17203 of the Business and Professions Code is not “damages” for “advertising injury” caused by “unfair competition” under the policy. In my view, the opinion should conclude with the statement of this principle and its application to the facts of the case.
Discussion of the second point made by the majority, that there must be a causal connection between “advertising injury” and “advertising activities,” and that such a connection was not established, is entirely unnecessary to the opinion. I express no view as to its validity.
Kennard, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790847. Public record. Not legal advice.