Erie Insurance is suing fellow insurer Cincinnati Insurance, claiming its co-insurer contributed nothing toward defending or settling a shared policyholder's lawsuit.
The suit, filed on March 24, 2026, in the US District Court for the Central District of California, pits two well-known carriers against each other in a dispute over who should have paid what when their mutual client, Select-Tech, Inc., got dragged into litigation.
Select-Tech, a Tennessee-based company that services ambulances and sells products to the public, was sued by competitor Grover Products LLC in federal court. Grover accused Select-Tech of using its well-known product model numbers in online advertising to pass off products as genuine Grover goods — claims rooted in unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act.
Both Erie and Cincinnati had sold Commercial General Liability policies to Select-Tech. Both were notified of the Grover lawsuit. And according to the filing, that is where their responses sharply diverged.
Erie says it stepped up immediately, accepted the defense, appointed counsel, and eventually contributed toward a settlement that resolved the Grover matter in October 2025. Cincinnati, according to the filing, denied coverage in April 2025, stating that nothing in the Grover lawsuit amounted to a "personal and advertising injury" under the policy - and offered no detailed analysis to back that conclusion.
At the heart of the dispute is a provision common to most CGL policies: offense "f" under the personal and advertising injury coverage, which applies to "the use of another's advertising idea in your 'advertisement.'" Erie argues that Grover's core accusation - that Select-Tech co-opted its famous model numbers to promote competing products online - fits neatly within that coverage grant.
Erie's filing also walks through several policy exclusions it anticipates Cincinnati may raise, and argues none of them hold up. On the intellectual property exclusion, Erie points to the built-in carve-back that preserves coverage for the use of another's advertising idea. On the prior publication exclusion, Erie flags contradictory dates in the Grover complaint that it says leave room for covered "fresh wrongs." The knowing violation, failure to conform, and unauthorized use exclusions are also addressed and, according to Erie, do not apply on the facts alleged.
The filing also takes aim at how Cincinnati handled the defense after eventually agreeing to participate under a reservation of rights. Erie alleges the attorney Cincinnati appointed was not an intellectual property lawyer, was not admitted to practice in California, never appeared in the case, and was unable to coordinate with the lawyer who had been handling Select-Tech's defense from the start.
Adding weight to Erie's position, the filing references a ruling from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, where Cincinnati had sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend. That court disagreed, finding that the Grover complaint "clearly alleges an advertising injury under the plain language of the Policies."
Erie is now seeking a declaration that Cincinnati owed both a duty to defend and indemnify, along with reimbursement for defense and settlement costs, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees.
No final determination has been made in this case. The matter is Erie Insurance Company v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Case No. 2:26-cv-03135, US District Court, Central District of California.
