There is a very interesting and entertaining article – if you like law, food, restaurants, intellectual property, or any combination of them – in the New York Times this morning, about a seafood restaurant suing a newer, competing restaurant for, basically, replicating – allegedly, as the two restaurants don’t look all that much alike to me in the limited pictures that ran with the article – the older restaurant’s menu and look.

Although the article pitches the issue and the lawsuit as new, I actually participated in litigation of the exact same case, for all intents and purposes, some fifteen or so years ago, involving two Boston area seafood restaurants, and whether the newer one had committed trade dress infringement. The end result? The newer one was really, right down to the style of its menu and pretty much everything else you can think of, cloning the older restaurant, and I know from personal experience that the public was actually confused about whether the new restaurant was affiliated with the older one, because prior to the lawsuit I had always assumed they were affiliated. The newer restaurant settled by agreeing to a number of changes that would clearly differentiate the two restaurants, and both restaurants remain thriving, expanding businesses almost two decades later, an amazing thing given the short shelf life of most restaurants.

And beyond the curiosity factor of the case described in the article, we can actually bring this story back around to the title subjects of this blog, by noting that, in that case years ago, the newer restaurant later litigated with its insurer whether there was insurance coverage for that lawsuit and its costs of retrofitting the restaurant to distinguish it from the other restaurant as part of the settlement. The restaurant lost the suit, not because the policy did not cover it, but because the restaurant defended and settled the case brought against it by the older restaurant before even notifying its insurer about the loss. Under the state of the law in this jurisdiction at that time, the restaurant was found to have forfeited coverage under its policy because its actions breached the notice and no voluntary payments clauses of the policy to the prejudice of the insurer (the outcome of that coverage litigation might arguably be different today under current law in Massachusetts, or at a minimum, the restaurant would have stronger arguments for coverage today despite these facts then it did then). And why did the restaurant delay? Because it didn’t know there might be coverage under its policy for the claim, or just assumed there would not be, illustrating the first rule of being a policyholder: always, always notify your insurer whenever a claim arises, and let the insurer figure out whether or not there is coverage for the claim rather than making your own guess.