Minnesota Lawyer
Where a manufacturer of pressure-sensitive flexible film argued that its general liability insurer breached its duty to defend in a defective-product action, the manufacturer did not show that the district court erred in interpreting the term “claim,” and the definition was not contrary to the primary purpose of claims-made policies and was not inconsistent with relevant case law, so summary judgment for the insurer is affirmed since the court did not err in holding the term to be unambiguous. Judgment is affirmed.
14-3392 Ritrama, Inc. v. HDI-Gerling America Insurance Company, appealed from the District of Minnesota, Bye J.
