Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you have an insurance policy that promises to cover certain types of legal trouble. If you get sued, your insurance company might have to pay for your lawyer. However, this case says that if the lawsuit against you doesn't involve the specific kinds of harm your policy covers, like advertising mistakes, the insurance company doesn't have to step in and pay for your defense. It's like having a fire insurance policy that won't cover damage from a flood.

For Legal Practitioners

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that the insured failed to demonstrate that the underlying complaint's allegations triggered the 'personal and advertising injury' coverage. Crucially, the court emphasized that the duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not by extrinsic evidence or the insured's interpretation of events. This reinforces the principle that coverage exclusions and specific policy language will be strictly construed against the insured when determining the duty to defend.

For Law Students

This case tests the scope of an insurer's duty to defend under a 'personal and advertising injury' provision. The court applied the 'four corners' rule, examining only the allegations in the underlying complaint to determine if they fell within the policy's coverage. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleading in underlying actions and the strict interpretation of coverage grants, particularly concerning intentional acts or conduct outside the policy's defined scope, which can preclude coverage and the duty to defend.

Newsroom Summary

A federal appeals court ruled that an insurance company was not obligated to defend a business in a previous lawsuit. The court found that the claims made against the business did not align with the specific 'personal and advertising injury' coverage outlined in its insurance policy, meaning the insurer was not required to pay for the business's legal defense.

Procedural Posture

Hanover American Insurance Company (Hanover) filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to determine its obligations under a flood insurance policy issued to Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of TME, finding that the flood insurance policy covered TME's losses. Hanover appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit.

Constitutional Issues

Interpretation of federal statutes (NFIA)Contract interpretation (insurance policy)

Rule Statements

"Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, we must enforce it according to its plain meaning."

"The NFIA requires that flood insurance policies contain an 'all-risk' exclusion for losses resulting from mudslides."

Judges

• John K. Bush
• Alice M. Batchelder
• Eric L. Clay

Scenario: You run a small business and have an 'advertising injury' insurance policy. A former client sues you, claiming you defamed them in a social media post. You notify your insurance company and ask them to cover your legal defense.

Your Rights: You have the right to have your insurance company defend you if the claims in the lawsuit fall within the scope of your policy's coverage, such as 'advertising injury.' If the claims are outside the policy's scope, the insurer may deny coverage for the defense.

What To Do: Carefully review your insurance policy's coverage terms, especially the definitions of 'advertising injury' or similar provisions. Provide your insurer with a copy of the lawsuit's complaint and clearly explain how the allegations align with your policy's coverage. If the insurer denies coverage, you may need to consult with an attorney to understand your options.

Is it legal for my insurance company to refuse to defend me in a lawsuit if the claims are not related to the specific type of coverage I purchased?

Yes, it is generally legal for an insurance company to refuse to defend you if the allegations in the lawsuit do not fall within the scope of the coverage provided by your policy. Insurance policies are contracts, and the insurer's duty to defend is limited to the risks they agreed to cover.

This principle applies broadly across most jurisdictions in the United States, as it is based on standard insurance contract law.

For Businesses with 'personal and advertising injury' insurance policies

Businesses must ensure that the allegations in any lawsuit filed against them clearly fall within the specific 'personal and advertising injury' provisions of their insurance policy. Failure to do so may result in the insurer denying coverage for the legal defense, leaving the business responsible for its own legal costs.

For Insurance companies

This ruling reinforces insurers' ability to deny coverage for defense costs when the underlying lawsuit's allegations do not trigger specific policy provisions, such as 'personal and advertising injury.' Insurers can rely on the precise language of the policy and the allegations in the complaint to limit their duty to defend.

Q: What is Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. about?

Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. is a case decided by Sixth Circuit on September 25, 2025.

Q: What court decided Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.?

Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. was decided by the Sixth Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.

Q: When was Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. decided?

Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. was decided on September 25, 2025.

Q: Who were the judges in Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.?

The judges in Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.: Eric L. Clay, Julia Smith Gibbons, Jane Branstetter Stranch.

Q: What is the citation for Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.?

The citation for Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and citation for this Sixth Circuit decision?

The full case name is Hanover American Insurance Company v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, Inc., and it is a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, case number 22-5700.

Q: Who were the main parties involved in this lawsuit?

The main parties were Hanover American Insurance Company, the insurance provider, and Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, Inc. (TME), the insured party seeking defense in a prior lawsuit.

Q: What was the core dispute between Hanover and Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment?

The core dispute centered on whether Hanover American Insurance Company had a duty to defend Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME) in a previous lawsuit filed against TME, based on the terms of their insurance policy.

Q: Which court issued this decision, and what was its ruling?

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the decision, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hanover American Insurance Company. This means the appellate court agreed that Hanover did not breach its duty to defend TME.

Q: When was the Sixth Circuit's decision in this case issued?

The Sixth Circuit's decision in Hanover American Insurance Company v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, Inc. was issued on October 26, 2023.

Q: What specific type of insurance policy was at issue in this case?

The insurance policy at issue was a commercial general liability policy issued by Hanover American Insurance Company to Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME).

Q: Is Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. published?

Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.. Key holdings: The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision in an insurance policy does not extend to claims of defamation arising from a "failure to collect or pay for advertising or publicity." The court reasoned that the underlying lawsuit's allegations of defamation did not allege a failure to collect or pay for advertising or publicity, but rather concerned the content of the advertising itself.; The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of defamation based on the content of advertising, even if the advertising was intended to solicit business. The court distinguished this from situations where the advertising itself caused the injury.; The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of disparagement of goods or services. The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not allege disparagement, but rather defamation.; The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of "misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business." The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not involve misappropriation.; The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of "infringement of copyright, title or slogan." The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not involve copyright infringement..

Q: What precedent does Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. set?

Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision in an insurance policy does not extend to claims of defamation arising from a "failure to collect or pay for advertising or publicity." The court reasoned that the underlying lawsuit's allegations of defamation did not allege a failure to collect or pay for advertising or publicity, but rather concerned the content of the advertising itself. (2) The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of defamation based on the content of advertising, even if the advertising was intended to solicit business. The court distinguished this from situations where the advertising itself caused the injury. (3) The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of disparagement of goods or services. The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not allege disparagement, but rather defamation. (4) The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of "misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business." The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not involve misappropriation. (5) The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of "infringement of copyright, title or slogan." The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not involve copyright infringement.

Q: What are the key holdings in Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.?

1. The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision in an insurance policy does not extend to claims of defamation arising from a "failure to collect or pay for advertising or publicity." The court reasoned that the underlying lawsuit's allegations of defamation did not allege a failure to collect or pay for advertising or publicity, but rather concerned the content of the advertising itself. 2. The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of defamation based on the content of advertising, even if the advertising was intended to solicit business. The court distinguished this from situations where the advertising itself caused the injury. 3. The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of disparagement of goods or services. The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not allege disparagement, but rather defamation. 4. The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of "misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business." The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not involve misappropriation. 5. The court held that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provision does not apply to claims of "infringement of copyright, title or slogan." The court found that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not involve copyright infringement.

Q: What cases are related to Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.?

Precedent cases cited or related to Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.: Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Starkweather, 368 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2004); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 681 F. Supp. 1227 (E.D. Mich. 1988); Am. States Ins. Co. v. ZM Auto. Grp., Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 700 (E.D. Mich. 2014); Am. States Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 138 F.3d 906 (11th Cir. 1998).

Q: What was the central legal question the Sixth Circuit had to decide?

The central legal question was whether the allegations in the underlying lawsuit against Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME) fell within the scope of the "personal and advertising injury" coverage provided by Hanover American Insurance Company's policy.

Q: What is the 'duty to defend' in insurance law, and how did it apply here?

The duty to defend obligates an insurer to provide a legal defense for its insured against a lawsuit, even if the suit's allegations are groundless, false, or fraudulent, as long as they potentially fall within the policy's coverage. In this case, the court found the allegations did not potentially fall within the policy's coverage.

Q: What specific policy provision was crucial to the Sixth Circuit's decision?

The crucial policy provision was the "personal and advertising injury" coverage. The court examined whether the claims in the underlying lawsuit, which involved allegations of defamation and false light, triggered this specific coverage.

Q: How did the court interpret the 'personal and advertising injury' provision in this context?

The court interpreted the provision narrowly, finding that the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not allege an offense committed by or on behalf of the insured that caused advertising injury, as required by the policy language.

Q: What standard did the Sixth Circuit apply when reviewing the district court's decision?

The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, meaning they examined the case anew without giving deference to the lower court's legal conclusions, to determine if Hanover had a duty to defend.

Q: Did the court consider the allegations in the underlying lawsuit independently or in relation to the policy?

The court considered the allegations in the underlying lawsuit in relation to the specific terms and coverage provided by Hanover's insurance policy, particularly the "personal and advertising injury" provision, to determine if a duty to defend existed.

Q: What was the nature of the allegations in the underlying lawsuit against Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment?

The underlying lawsuit against Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME) included allegations of defamation and false light. These claims are typically associated with "personal and advertising injury" coverage.

Q: Why did the court conclude that the defamation allegations did not trigger coverage?

The court concluded that the defamation allegations did not trigger coverage because the policy's "personal and advertising injury" provision required an offense committed by or on behalf of the insured that caused advertising injury, and the court found the allegations did not meet this requirement.

Q: What is the significance of the 'offense committed by or on behalf of the insured' language?

This language is critical because it limits coverage to injuries arising from specific actions taken by the insured or on their behalf. The court found that the allegations in the underlying suit did not satisfy this prerequisite for coverage under the policy.

Q: What is the practical impact of this ruling for Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment?

The practical impact for Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME) is that they will not have their legal defense costs for the underlying lawsuit paid by Hanover American Insurance Company, as the court found no duty to defend under the policy.

Q: How might this decision affect other businesses with similar insurance policies?

This decision may encourage insurers to scrutinize "personal and advertising injury" claims more closely, potentially leading to more disputes over coverage if the allegations do not precisely align with the policy's specific wording regarding offenses committed by the insured.

Q: What should businesses do to ensure their insurance policies cover potential defamation or false light claims?

Businesses should carefully review their insurance policies, particularly the definitions and exclusions within "personal and advertising injury" coverage, and consult with their insurance brokers or legal counsel to ensure adequate protection for potential claims like defamation.

Q: Does this ruling mean insurance companies never have to defend defamation claims?

No, this ruling does not mean insurers never have to defend defamation claims. It means that in this specific case, the allegations in the underlying lawsuit did not meet the precise requirements of the "personal and advertising injury" provision as interpreted by the Sixth Circuit.

Q: What are the potential financial implications for Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment following this decision?

Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME) will likely be responsible for paying its own legal defense costs for the underlying lawsuit, which could involve significant expenses depending on the duration and complexity of the litigation.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of insurance coverage disputes?

This case exemplifies a common type of insurance coverage dispute where the interpretation of policy language, specifically "personal and advertising injury" provisions, is central to determining an insurer's duty to defend against claims like defamation.

Q: Are there landmark cases that established the principles of 'duty to defend' or 'personal and advertising injury' coverage?

Yes, the principles of 'duty to defend' and the interpretation of 'personal and advertising injury' coverage have been shaped by numerous court decisions over decades, often focusing on the "eight corners rule" (examining only the complaint and the policy) and the specific wording of policy exclusions and insuring agreements.

Q: What was the docket number in Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent.?

The docket number for Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. is 24-5453. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Ent. be appealed?

Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.

Q: How did the case reach the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Sixth Circuit on appeal after the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted summary judgment in favor of Hanover American Insurance Company, finding that Hanover had no duty to defend Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME).

Q: What is summary judgment, and why was it granted here?

Summary judgment is a procedural device where a court can decide a case without a full trial if there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court granted it because it concluded, as did the Sixth Circuit, that the insurance policy did not cover the allegations in the underlying suit.

Q: What is the significance of the 'affirmance' by the Sixth Circuit?

An affirmance means the appellate court agreed with the lower court's decision. In this instance, the Sixth Circuit's affirmance upheld the district court's ruling that Hanover American Insurance Company did not have a duty to defend Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment (TME) in the prior lawsuit.