WPCh W%^Yl'̵ !XuCB8yѵLlկ̛<)qɸ XSҰMQ.Q l 3 .U){[i-lEj@vg _L@gX KUa>7<_@ {%Ua<|w#E|>`%!<~{Dd]_UC/t5R2@yocOg%/㇝ 0|A3X-D-y2QV 63WnPU RI. C}# % 0 c 0( U:( 0 b UN( nTv UF ^ w4 mE6f8a:NNNPU0RU > 1 0cMMM 1u 72% 0UW B 0 0 0 0{ 0[ 08 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0| 0JJ 0 0 0 0@b 0 0v 0G! 0" 0" 0# 0m$ 0/% 00% 0<& 0X& 0>' 0vT' 0`' 0`*( 0`( 0`( 0`J) 08) 0) 02* 0* 0:+ 0Y, 0_u, 0 , 0j- 0H/ 720 B*0 D/(1 D+W1 01 D/3 053 064 094 0:A5 0^{5 0<5 0N6U6c6U>6U*6-7-.7^[7UB7b78; 0T? 0?p?$DCHIN5Q5QS[PajGcHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X("v$X6XXX  *  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2X$ !    =1XXdd=    0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular O'TooleTorruellaRuggerio T]heAddamaxSecureware USF*mischaracterization SJCIndemțD-s ^A-backup3|xUTABLE A<\( 9Z+Courier &Courier Regular( CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)$i)*+ (_2623  .. d*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7[(X7  ?h%2A`Arial?  Sg\  `&Times New RomanS7\(X7$i)&  d dZ)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7^(X7  ?h%2A`Arial?  Sg\  `&Times New RomanS7\(X7Z)2dxd0KS.SampleKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial ##"Xd# ##Xd#L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  X$  =-XXdd=    1    _X-XXXBothOSFandHewlettPackard(HP),oneofOSF'ssponsors,  filedthisactionagainstUSF&G.USF&GclaimsthatHPshouldnot x bepermittedtosuebecauseitfailedtotendertheclaimtoUSF&G @ inatimelyfashion.InlightofourdeterminationthatOSF's X claimslackmerit,HP'sidenticalclaimsagainstOSFmust   necessarilyfailaswell.Therefore,weneednotaddressthe  questionofwhetherHPproperlybroughtsuit.Forthesakeof `  convenience,werefertotheplaintiffsasOSF.#X-XXX-#X-XXX-   X$  =-XXdd=    2    _X-XXXAnunabridgedaccountoftheclaimsandtheirdisposition  maybefoundintheopinionsAddamaxv.OpenSoftwareFound.,964 x F.Supp.549(D.Mass.1997),andAddamaxv.OpenSoftwareFound., @ 152F.3d48(1stCir.1998).Thedistrictcourt'sdecisioninthis X caseprovidesaconcisesummaryofthesetwocases.SeeOpen   SoftwareFound.,Inc.andHewlettPackardCorp.v.UnitedStates  Fid.andGuar.Co.,2001WL1298878(D.Mass.2001).#X-XXX-#XXXX- x #X-XXXK#X-XXX-Document1zzSDUNumber4Document1zzSDUNumber5 f X$  =-XXdd=    3    __X-XXXUnder_ԀMassachusettslaw,allegationscontainedinanyversion  ofthecomplaintmaytriggeraninsurer'sdutytodefend.See x Lumbermen'sMut._Cas_.Co.v.BellevilleIndus.,Inc.,555N.E.2d @ 568,575(Mass.1990)("[_U]ntil_Ԁthereisanunalterable X determinationastothenatureoftheunderlyingclaim,any   declarationofrightsconcerningtheinsurer'sdutytodefend  cannotbeconclusive.").Accordingly,weusetheterm"complaints" `  inourdiscussionofthecasetorefercollectivelyto_Addamax_'s ( x originalcomplaintandfirstamendedcomplaint.#X-XXX-#X-XXX-  X$  =-XXdd=    4    _X-XXXWefollowthedistrictcourtindefining"toadumbrate"to  mean"'togiveasketchyrepresentationof;outlinebroadly, x omittingdetails(therewasonlytimetoadumbratetheplan)'or @ 'tosuggest,indicate,ordisclosepartiallyandwithapurposeful X avoidanceofprecision(themeaningofthepoemisadumbratedin   itstitle).'"OSF,2001WLat*3n.1(quoting1Webster'sThirdNew  InternationalDictionary30(1981));seealsoRandomHouse `  Webster'sCollegeDictionary19(1992)(definingadumbratetomean ( x "togiveafaintimageorindicationof;outlineorsketch").#X-XXX-#X-XXX- | X$  =-XXdd=    5    _X-XXXWhenthepartiesreferto"extrinsicfacts,"whichtheyoften  do,weunderstandthemtomeanfactsnotreferencedwithinthe x complaint.  X$  =-XXdd=    6    _X-XXXOSFarguesthatthe"multiplereasonablemeaningsforthe  'unfaircompetitionoffensewhichhavelongbeenknowntoinsurers x evidencethatthetermis...ambiguous,"andcitesNewCastle @ County,Delawarev._Natl_ԀUnionFireIns.Co.,243F.3d742,745 X (7thCir.2001)(observingthatthis"singlephrase,which    insurancecompanieshaveconsistentlyrefusedtodefine,andthat  hasgeneratedliterallyhundredsoflawsuits,withwidelyvarying x results,cannot,underourapplicationofcommonsense,betermed @ unambiguous.").Id.However,NewCastleCountyaddressedthe X phrase"invasionoftherightofprivateoccupancy,"id.,notthe   phrase"unfaircompetition"atissuehere.#X-XXX-#X-XXX-  X$  =-XXdd=    7    _X-XXXTheoneexception,Keatingv.NationalUnionFireInsurance  Co.,754F.Supp.1431(C.D.Cal.1990),hassincebeenreversedby x theNinthCircuitonappeal.SeeKeatingv.NationalUnionFire @ InsuranceCo.,#X-XXX-#X-XXX-Ԁ995F.2d154(1991).#X-XXX-#X-XXX-  X$  =-XXdd=    8    _X-XXXLooselytranslated,_noscitur_Ԁa_sociis_means"itisknownfrom  itsassociates."Asacanonofconstruction,itmeansthat"the x meaningofawordisormaybeknownfromtheaccompanyingwords." @ Black'sLawDictionary1060(6thed.1990).#X-XXX-#X-XXX-  X$  =-XXdd=    9    _X-XXXOSFarguesthattheAddamaxlitigationiscoveredbythe  policybecausetheeighth"claimforrelief"inAddamax's x complaintsaccuseOSFof"UnfairMethodsofCompetitionin @ ViolationoftheMassachusettsUnfairTradePracticesAct."Asthe X districtcourtpointedout,"Massachusettscourtsconstruetheterm   'unfaircompetition'inaliabilityinsurancepolicynotonlyto  signifythatcommonlawtort,butalsotodistinguishitfromthe `  statutorycauseofactionforunfairbusinesspracticesunder ( x Chapter93A."OSF,2001WL1298878,at*6#X-XXX-#X-XXX-#X-XXX-#X-XXX-Ԁ(citing_Smartfoods_,Inc.  @ v.NorthbrookProp.&_Cas_.Co.,618N.E.2d1365,#X-XXX-#X-XXX-#X-XXX-#X-XXX-Ԁ1368(Mass.App.    Ct.1993)).AddamaxwassuingforviolationofChapter93A,not    forcommonlawunfaircompetition.Cf.GrahamResources,Inc.v. H   LexingtonInsuranceCo.,625So.2d716,721(La.Ct.App.1993) `  (observingthat"inalloftheoutofstatecaseswehave (  reviewed,"courtshaveruledthatunfaircompetitionincontextof    insurancecoverageforadvertisinginjurydoesnotrefertoconduct  prohibitedbystatute). #X-XXX-'#X-XXX-  X$  =-XXdd=    10    __X-XXXWe_Ԁdonotreadthephrase"whethertheadvertisingdidin  factcontributemateriallytotheinjury"aspredicatingan x insurer'sdutytodefendonthefactsprovenattrial.Indeed,we @ couldnotreadthephrasethatway.TheSupremeJudicialCourthas X observedthat"[t]heobligationofaninsurertodefendisnot,and   cannotbe,determinedbyreferencetothefactsprovenattrial.  Rather,thedutytodefendisbasedonthefactsallegedinthe `  complaint..."BostonSymphony,545N.E.2dat1158.Asusedinthe ( x R.C.Bigelowdecision,thephrase"infact"simplyemphasizesthat  @ theinsuredcannottriggeradutytodefendunlesstheactsalleged    intheunderlyingcomplaintthatsupposedlyfallwithinthe    coverageoftheliabilitypolicyarefurtherallegedbythe H   plaintiffinthatactiontohavecontributedmateriallytothe `  injury.#X-XXX-#X-XXX-  X$  =-XXdd=    11    __X-XXXWe_Ԁseenoreasontoconstruethephrase"arisingoutof"  differentlyintheadvertisinginjuryandpersonalinjury x provisionsoftheUSF&Gpolicies.#X-XXX-#X-XXX- ` X$  =-XXdd=    12    _X-XXXTheabsenceofasubstantialconsumerbasewiththecapacity  toalteritspurchasingbehaviorinresponsetodisparagingor x defamatorymaterialdistinguishesthiscasefromKnollPharm.Co., @ 152F.Supp.2dat1026(N.D.Ill.2001),whichOSFreliesheavily X uponinitsbrief.InKnoll,theinsuredsoldasyntheticthyroid   hormonethatitpromotedasbeingsuperiortocompetinggeneric  drugsonthebasisthattherewas"noprovenbioequivalent `  product."Id.at1030.Thedistrictcourtruledthattheinsured ( x wasentitledtocoverageundertheirliabilitypolicy,noting  @ interaliathatsuchdisparagingandmisleadingremarksbythe    insuredmayhaveinducedplaintiffs(purchasersofhealthand    medicalsupplies)tosubstantiallyoverpayfortheinsured's H   thyroiddrugwhentheycouldhavepurchasedacheapergenericdrug `  withtheequivalentbiologicalcomposition. !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XXXXueXX     i;j<UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsue  FortheFirstCircuit  y X]X y  A') ` dE< ` A   X-XX X]No.012342 u  @ OPENSOFTWAREFOUNDATION,INC.,andHEWLETTPACKARDCOMPANY  U    `     h     @Plaintiffs,Appellants,    @tt)v. ]  @ UNITEDSTATESFIDELITYANDGUARANTYCO., =  @<< @@<< Defendant,Appellee.   A') ` dE<D` A E  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT l   FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS    [Hon.GeorgeA.O'Toole,U.S.DistrictJudge] < K@*A') ` dE<` A  @'Before k   @@((TorruellaandLipez,CircuitJudges, K andSchwarzer,SeniorDistrictJudge.*  A') ` dE<` A k!       EricR.Little,withwhomDavidA.Gauntlett,Gauntlett& B# Associates,StephenG.Hennessy,andCorcoran,Fitzgerald&  $ Hennessy,LLCwereonbrief,forappellants.  %   DavidM.Ostrander,withwhomJamesS.Greenan,Greenan, "b' Peffer,Sallander&Lally,LLP,JohnGraceffa,andMorrison, "*( Mahoney&Millerwereonbrief,forappellee.   #) *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  2% +2%  N  \R!% ,  S@37532S@\   October4,2002 ^&!.   RHC&'v"/ S@37532 S@ R(% 0  (* !  ______________________ (n#0    *OftheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,sittingby )$2  designation.  v*%3? j< j8-XXdd8 j    8l-lXXdXXd8m*,X` XX*    ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge . PlaintiffsOpenSoftware   Foundation(OSF)andHewlettPackard(HP)broughtthisdiversity  actionagainstUSF&G,theirgeneralcommercialliabilityinsurer,  p claimingthatUSF&Ghadadutytodefendalawsuitfiledagainst   thembyAddamaxCorporation,asoftwaremanufacturer.n vX-XXX-  1      ׀AfterOSF @  decidednottobundleAddamaxsecuritysoftwareintoitsUNIXbased    operatingsystem,AddamaxsuedOSFin1989,allegingthatitwasa `  pricefixingpurchasingpool.Thelitigationcontinueduntil1998, @  whenweaffirmedJudgeTauro'sgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoOSF.   SeeAddamaxv.OpenSoftwareFoundation,152F.3d48(1stCir. ` 1998).OSF'sgeneralcommercialliabilitypolicywithUSF&G  obligedtheinsurancecompanytoindemnifyOSFforliability 0 incurredinsuitsbasedonarangeofactivitiesclassified,inter  alia,as"personalinjury"or"advertisinginjury". P  ` WeagreewiththedistrictcourtthatAddamaxs 0 complaints,readinconjunctionwithallrelevantextrinsic p evidencecitedbyOSF,neitherstatednoradumbratedaclaimfor P  damagesresultingfroma"personalinjury"or"advertisinginjury" " definedinthepolicies.Consequently,weconcludethatUSF&Ghad  !p$ nodutytodefendtheAddamaxlitigation,andweaffirmthe "& decisionofthedistrictcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttoUSF&G. @$( i; i8-XXdlXXd8 i    I.Background    ` Organizedin1988bysevencomputerhardwareandsoftware  companies(the"sponsors"),pursuanttotheNationalCooperative  p ResearchActof1984,15U.S.C.430105(1993),OSFwastasked   withdesigningandmarketingaUNIXbasedoperatingsystemknownas   OSF/1thatwouldbecomeanindustrystandardforUNIXusers.To  p  induceothercompaniestodevelopcomponentsforitsoperating   system,OSFformulatedvarious"requestsfortechnology"(RFTs), @  whichessentiallyofferedcompetingsupplierstheopportunityto   submittheirproductstobeintegratedintotheOSF/1operating ` system. @  ` Onenecessarycomponentoftheoperatingsystemwas  securitysoftware.InNovember,1989,OSFsolicitedtwosoftware ` developers,AddamaxCorporation(Addamax)andSecureware,tosubmit  theirsecuritytechnologiesforevaluation.Roughlyoneyear 0 later,OSFselectedSecureware'ssecuritytechnologytobe  incorporatedintoOSF/1. P   ` InApril,1990,Addamax'scounselsentademandletterto 0" OSFclaimingthatitsdecisionto"bundle"Securewaresoftwareinto p!$ OSF/1violatedfederalandstateantitrustlaws,andthreatening #P& litigationiftheallegedviolationswerenotremedied.WhenOSF $( failedtorespondtothesedemands ,Addamaxfiledacomplaint  &p!* againstOSFandtwoofitssponsors,HewlettPackardandDigital '#, ElectricCorporation.Addamaxallegedthatthesponsorsand @)$. membersofOSFwerea"buyers'cartel"thatconspiredtocoerce * &0 softwaremakersintoofferingtheirproductstoOSFatpricesbelow `,'2 fairmarketvalue.o vX-XXX-  2      ׀ThecomplaintsummarizedAddamax'sclaimsas  follows: @  K+F F` hp x ,X` XK8  8` f!f!Thisisanactiontorecoverdamagesandobtain   permanentinjunctivereliefagainsttheOpen  SoftwareFoundation,Inc.("OSF"),Digital `  EquipmentCorporation("DEC"),andHewlett ( x PackardCompany("HP")forviolationsof  @ federalandstateantitrustlaws,unfairtrade    practicelaw,andthecommonlawofthe    CommonwealthofMassachusetts....OSFacts H   asanillegalcartelthrough% p %p"whichits `  Sponsors...haveillegallycombined, (  contracted,orconspiredtoexercisetheir   aggregatemarketpowerby,amongotherthings, h  fixingpricesforthesoftwaretechnologyOSF 0  acquiresfromsoftwaredevelopers;settinga H  priceceilingincertainsoftwaremarkets;  allocatingproductmarketsamongtheSponsors;  andboycottingcertainindependentsoftware P developers,including[Addamax].Thenet h effect,amongothers,ofthedefendants' 0 activitieshasbeenandwillbetounlawfully  andunreasonablyrestraintrade,substantially p lessencompetitionamongpurchasersofsoftware, 8 driveindependentsoftwaredevelopersoutof P business,andreinforcethestrongmarket  positionsofOSFanditsSponsors.` `  g  B+ ` hp x FFXB8      Oftheninecountsinthecomplaint,thefirstsevenwerebasedon 8 federalorstateantitruststatutes.Theeighthcountallegedthat x! OSF'soperationsconstituted"unfairmethodsofcompetitionand  X# unfairordeceptiveactsorpractices"inviolationofMass.Gen. !% Lawsch.93A,2and11("Chapter93A"). Theninthcountalleged (#x' thatOSFanditssponsors"intentionallyandimproperlyinterfered $ ) % q %q)withAddamax'sactualcontractualrelationsandprospective  contractualrelations."Approximatelytwoyearsafterfilingits @ originalcomplaint,Addamaxfiledanamendedcomplainttoinclude,   interalia,moredetailedallegationsdescribingandillustrating `  OSF'spracticeofcoercingindependentsoftwarevendorstolicense  @ theirproductsatbelowmarketprices.r vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  3      ׀       ` OSFandHPsuccessfullydefendedtheAddamaxsuit.We `  "foundthatantitrustviolations,eveniftheywereassumedtohave   occurred,werenotamaterialcauseofAddamax'sfailureinthe 0  lineofbusinessatissue,"andaccordinglyaffirmedthedistrict  court'sgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoOSF.AddamaxCorp.v.Open P SoftwareFound.,152F.3d48,50(1stCir.1998). 0    ` AnticipatingthecostsofdefendingtheAddamaxsuit, p OSF'scorporatecounselsentalettertoUSF&GonMarch5,1992, P requestingthattheydefendtheclaimpursuanttotheprimaryand  excessliabilitypoliciesissuedbyUSF&G.Inamemorandum  p appendedtotheletter,OSF'sassociategeneralcounsel,Sue   Schlener,arguedthattheAddamaxclaimswerecoveredbyOSF's @" policywithUSF&Gunderthe"advertisinginjury"or"personal  $ injury"clausesofthepolicies.Afterconsultingoutsidecounsel, `"& USF&GnotifiedOSFonAugust25,1992,thatitdidnotconsiderany #@( oftheclaimstofallwithinthecoveragefurnishedbytheprimary  andexcessliabilitypolicies,andthereforedeclinedtoaccept @ tenderofthedefense.      ` Approximatelysixyearslater,OSFfiledthislawsuit `  againstUSF&GwhileAddamax'sappealintheunderlyingactionwas  @ stillpendingbeforethiscourt.ClaimingthatUSF&Ghadadutyto    defendtheAddamaxclaim,OSFrequestedadeclaratoryjudgmentto `  thiseffectaswellasdamagesintheamountofreasonabledefense   costs.OSFspecificallycontendedthatAddamax'ssuitalludedto 0  "personalinjuries,"includingdefamation,and"advertising  injuries,"includingunfaircompetition;andassertedthatsince P bothtypesofclaimswerelistedinUSF&G'sgeneralandexcess 0 liabilitypolicies,USF&Ghadadutytodefend.Inathoughtful p opinion,thedistrictcourtfoundbothargumentsunpersuasiveand P grantedUSF&G'smotionforsummaryjudgment.OSFappeals,arguing  thatboththepersonalinjuryandadvertisinginjuryclausesofthe  p GCLtriggeredadutytodefend.      6  II.InterpretingthePolicies   !p$ 6   ` Likemostotherjurisdictions,Massachusettsimposesa #P& broaddutytodefendoninsurers:"[i]tisaxiomaticthatan $( insurancecompany'sdutytodefendisbroaderthanitsdutyto  &p!* indemnify."BostonSymphonyOrchestrav.CommercialUnionIns.Co., '#, 545N.E.2d1156,1158(Mass.1989).TheSupremeJudicialCourt @)$. (SJC)hasobservedthatthedutytodefend"isbasedonthefacts * &0 allegedinthecomplaintandthosefactswhichareknownbythe `,'2 insurer."BostonSymphony,545N.E.2dat1158.Thus,theinsurer  mustaccepttenderofadefenseifthecomplaintsstateor @ adumbrates vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  4      ׀acoveredclaimwhenreadinlightofextrinsicfactst vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  5         bearingsomerelevancetotheallegationsthattheplaintiffdid `  notspecificallyincludeinthecomplaint,butwerenonetheless  @ knownorreadilyknowablebytheinsurerwhenthedefensewas    tendered: `  8  8`   [T]hequestionoftheinitialdutyofa   liabilityinsurertodefendthirdparty h  actionsagainsttheinsuredisdecidedby 0  matchingthethirdpartycomplaintwiththe H  policyprovisions:iftheallegationsofthe  complaintare"reasonablysusceptible"ofan  interpretationthattheystateoradumbratea P claimcoveredbythepolicyterms,theinsurer h mustundertakethedefense....Otherwise 0 stated,theprocessisoneofenvisagingwhat  kindsoflossesmaybeprovedaslyingwithin p therangeofallegationsofthecomplaint,and 8 thenseeingwhetheranysuchlossfitsthe P expectationofprotectiveinsurancereasonably  generatedbythetermsofthepolicy.` x` x <ContinentalCas.Co.v.GilbaneBldg.Co.,461N.E.2d209,212 8 (Mass.1984)(quotingSteriliteCorp.v.ContinentalCas.Co.,458 x! N.E.2d338,34041(Mass.1984)(citationsandfootnoteomitted)).  X# ! ` XX! ` Determiningwhethercomplaints"adumbrate"aclaimcanbe  adifficultinterpretiveexercise.OSFandUSF&Gadvancewidely @ varyingaccountsofhowthecourt,applyingMassachusettslaw,is   toanalyzethecomplaintsandfactsextrinsictothemwhen `  "envisagingwhatkindsoflossesmaybeprovedaslyingwithinthe  @ rangeofallegationsofthecomplaint."ContinentalCas.Co.,458    N.E.2dat212.USF&Garguesthat"eveniffactsexistextrinsicto `  thecomplaintwhich,iftheywerepleaded,wouldtrigger   coverage...[t]hereisnodutytodefend"ifthe"allegationsof 0  thecomplaintareunambiguouslyoutsidethescopeofpolicy  coverage."OSFrejectsthischaracterizationofMassachusettslaw P andlargelyrestsitscaseonthepropositionthatUSF&Ghadaduty 0 todefendOSFbecauseAddamaxcouldhavesuedforacovered p personaloradvertisinginjuryonthebasisoffactsoutsidethe P complaintsthatwere"knownorreadilyknowablebytheinsurer."  StateMutualLifeAssuranceCo.v.Lumbermen'sMutualCasualtyCo.,  p 874F.Supp.451,456(D.Mass.1995).    ` Massachusettscourtsgenerallyuseextrinsicfacts(such @" asthosesetforthindemandletterstotheinsurer)toaid  $ interpretationofthecomplaint,andnotasindependentfactual `"& predicatesforadutytodefend.Inattemptingto"envisag[e]what #@( kindsoflossesmaybeprovedaslyingwithintherangeof % * allegationsofthecomplaint,"theinsurermustexaminethe '`", plaintiff'sallegationsinconjunctionwithfactsthatitknowsor (#. readilyshouldknowinordertodeterminewhethercoverageexists 0*%0 underthepolicy.BostonSymphony,545N.E.2dat1158,1160. +'2 However,theinsuredcannot,"intheabsenceofacomplaintthat  requirescoverage,forceitsinsurertodefendtheinsuredby @ simplytellingtheinsurerfactsthatwouldcreatecoverage."Id.   at1160;seealsoKilgorev.Resumix,1998Mass.Super.LEXIS170 `  (findingnodutytodefendwheredefamatoryutterancewasneither  @ allegednorimplied,andamendmentofthecomplainttostatea    defamationclaimwasamerepossibility). `   ` ThelanguageofBostonSymphonyundercutsOSF'sposition   thatfactsextrinsictotheplaintiff'sallegationsinthe 0  complaints,uncoveredatanystageoftheunderlyingaction,can  independentlytriggeradutytodefendthatdoesnotarisefromthe P allegationsofthecomplaints,howeversketchilystated.Indeed, 0 theSJCenvisionedalimitedroleforextrinsicfactsinliability p insurancecases:"Weholdonlythataninsurermustgive P considerationtofactsoutsidethecomplaintwhenitconsidersthe  allegationsinthecomplainttodetermineifcoverageexists."  p BostonSymphony,874F.Supp.at456.Thisholdingisconsistent   withpriorMassachusettsdecisionsemphasizingthat"thereisno @" dutytodefendif,atthetimetheclaimswereadvanced,the  $ insurercouldreasonablyhaveconcludedthatnoaspectofthe `"& claims...fellwithinthescopeofcoverage."MilliporeCorp. #@( v.TravelersIndem.Co.,115F.3d21,35(1stCir.1997)(citing % * PolaroidCorp.v.TravelersIndem.Co.,610N.E.2d912,916(Mass. '`", 1993))(emphasisadded).Thus,whiletheinsurercangenerally (#. determineitsdutytodefendaftertheplaintiffsubmitsthe 0*%0 initialversionofhiscomplaint,thedutytodefendmay +'2 occasionallyariseduringalaterphaseintheunderlyingactionif  theplaintiffobtainsleavetoamendandaddsallegationsthat @ triggercoverage.Consequently,"untilthereisanunalterable   determinationastothenatureoftheunderlyingclaim,any `  declarationofrightsconcerningtheinsurer'sdutytodefend  @ cannotbeconclusive."Lumbermen'sMut.Cas.Co.v.Belleville    Indus.,Inc.,555N.E.2d568,575(Mass.1990). `   ` Wethereforetreattheextrinsicfactsknownorreadily   knowabletoUSF&GasanaidtointerpretingtheAddamaxcomplaints. 0  Wedonotconsiderthemasindependentgroundsforadutyto  defend.Functioninginthislimitedrole,extrinsicfactsworkin P tandemwiththe"adumbrate"standardtoaddsubstanceandmeaning 0 toskeletalclaimsonlyadumbratedinthecomplaint.Thesefacts, p broughttotheinsurer'sattentioninatimelyfashionbythe P insured,aidtheinsurer'sinformedreviewofthetenderofdefense  bypaintingafullerpictureoftheunderlyingaction.  p  ` However,extrinsicfactscanalsobemisusedbyinsureds   seekingtotransformaskeletalclaimintheunderlyingcomplaint @" intoanallegationarguablycoveredbytheliabilitypolicybut  $ unrelatedtoanactualclaiminthecomplaint.Employedinthis `"& way,extrinsicfactscouldstretchthetermsoftheliability #@( policytoencompasslawsuitsbeyondthecontemplationofthe % * partieswhentheycontractedfortheinsurance.Hence,wemustbe '`", mindfuloftheSJC'sadmonitioninBostonSymphonythattheinsured (#. cannot,"intheabsenceofacomplaintthatrequirescoverage, 0*%0 forceitsinsurerstodefendtheinsuredbysimplytellingthe +'2 insurerfactsthatwouldcreatecoverage."BostonSymphony,545  N.E.2dat1160. @  ` Wenowdiscusseachofthetwocontestedclausesofthe   policiesinturn. `     III.AdvertisingInjury    H] `  OSFarguesthatAddamax'ssuitwascoveredunderthe `  "advertisinginjury"provisionsoftheprimaryandexcessinsurance @  policiesineffectatthetimeofOSF'sannouncementofthe   selectionofSecureware.ThepivotaldefinitioninthePrimary ` Policyreadsasfollows:   B+F F` hp x ` XB8  8` f!f!"AdvertisingInjury"meansinjuryarisingoutof 0 anoffensecommittedduringthepolicyperiod H occurringinthecourseofthenamedinsured's  advertisingactivities,ifsuchinjuryarises  outoflibel,slander,defamation,violationof P rightofprivacy,piracy,unfaircompetition,or h infringementofcopyright,titleorslogan.0` `  h_ B+ ` hp x FFXBTheUmbrellaPolicyprovidingexcesscoveragesimilarlycovers 8 damagesresultingfrom: !  ?+F F` hp x X?8  0` f!f!Advertisinginjurymean[ing]injuryarisingoutof X # oneormoreofthefollowingactscommittedduring  !p$ thepolicyperiodbyorfortheNamedInsuredinany !8% advertisement,publicityarticle,broadcastor "& telecast:x#'` f!` f! 8  0` f!f!(a)0 ` f!` f!libel,slanderordefamation;@$( f! f! b8  0` f!f!(b)0 ` f!` f!infringementofcopyrightoroftitleorof %X ) slogan;% !* f! f!  ( 83$! !"!3"  8  0` f!f!!3f2 (  c  )3  0 ` f!` f!  piracyorunfaircompetitionoridea &!+ misappropriationunderanimpliedcontract;!3fNf݌`'", f! f! Ќ  8  0` f!f!(d)0 ` f!` f!invasionoftherightofprivacy.((x#- f! f! dg $ ` XFFX$ Ofalltheactslistedintheadvertisinginjury )%/ provisionsofthetwopolicies,only"unfaircompetition"is H+&1 invokedbyOSFasanunderlyingcauseoftheadvertisinginjuries  adumbratedintheAddamaxcomplaints.Ininterpretingthephrase @ "unfaircompetition,"wenotethatcourtsaregenerallyobliged   toconstrueambiguoustermsinaninsurancecontractinfavorof `  theinsured.SeeKennethH.York&JohnW.Whelan,InsuranceLaw  @ 41,42(2ded.1988)(discussingthedoctrineofcontra    proferentum);Mass.BayTransp.Auth.v.AllianzIns.Co.,597 `  N.E.2d439(Mass.1992)(recognizingthedoctrineinMassachusetts   law).Yetthisruledoesnotoperateherebecausethephrase 0  "unfaircompetition"asusedintheUSF&Gpoliciesisnot  ambiguous.SeeMass.BayTransp.Auth.,597N.E.2dat441 P (decliningtofollowthedoctrineofcontraproferentumbecause 0 therelevantpolicylanguagewasnotambiguous).Asthedistrict p courtfound,theterm"unfaircompetition"inthepolicies P "refer[s]toconductthatcausesconfusiononthepartof  consumers,"suchaspalmingofforpassingoff.OSF,2001WL  p 1298878at*6;seealsoAmericanBarAssociationSectionof   Litigation,ModelJuryInstructions:BusinessTortsLitigation @" 4.01[3](1996).ItissettledinMassachusettsthat"the  $ gravamenofanunfaircompetitionclaimisthelikelihoodof `"& consumerconfusionastothesourceofthegoodsorservices." #@( DatacommInterface,Inc.v.Computerworld,Inc.,489N.E.2d185, % * 191(Mass.1986).u vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  6      ׀ '`",  Giventhewellsettledmeaningoftheterm"unfair  competition"inMassachusettslaw,theleadingcaseinthe @ Commonwealthinterpretingthephrase"unfaircompetition"ina   generalcommercialliabilityinsurancepolicynotsurprisingly `  limitstheinjuryto"palmingoff."SeeSmartfoods,Inc.v.  @ NorthbrookProp.&Cas.Co.,618N.E.2d1365,1368(Mass.App.Ct.    1993)("Unfaircompetition,initscommonlawsignification, `  impliespalmingoff.").Palmingoffis"'anattemptbyoneperson   toinducecustomerstobelievethathisproductsareactually 0  thoseofanother.'"Kazmaierv.Wooten,761F.2d46,52(1stCir.  1985)(quotingRemcoIndustriesv.Toyomenka,Inc.,286F.Supp. P 948,954(S.D.N.Y.1968),aff'd,397F.2d977(2dCir.1968).By 0 contrast,AddamaxblamesOSFfornotusingAddamaxsoftwareinits p operatingsystem,andattributesthisdecisiontoanillegal P schemeofmonopolizationandpricefixing.Whereaspalmingoff  involvestheillicitidentificationorassociationofthe  p defendant'sproductwiththeplaintiff's,Addamax'smajor   grievanceisthatOSFdisassociateditselffromAddamax,thereby @" foreclosingthecompany'sparticipationinalargesegmentofthe  $ UNIXsoftwaremarket.ThustheAddamaxcomplaintisnot `"& reasonablysusceptibleofaninterpretationthatitindicatedor #@( adumbratedaclaimforunfaircompetition. % *  Massachusetts'sdecisiontoconstruetheadvertising  injuryofunfaircompetitioninageneralcommercialliability @ insurancepolicyasequivalentinscopetothestatecommonlaw   tortofthesamenamereflectstheapproachofamajorityof `  jurisdictions.SeeAtlanticMut.Ins.Co.v.BiotechCorp.,857  @ F.Supp.423,429(E.D.Pa.1994)(collectingcases);Standard    FireIns.Co.v.People'sChurchofFresno,985F.2d446(9thCir. `  1993);GencorIndus.,Inc.v.WausauUnderwritersIns.Co.,857   F.Supp.1560(M.D.Fla.1994);PineTopIns.Co.v.PublicUtil. 0  Dist.No.1,676F.Supp.212(E.D.Wash.1987);QSP,Inc.v.  AetnaCas.andSur.Co.,773A.2d906(Conn.2001);Bankofthe P Westv.SuperiorCourt,833P.2d545(1992).Infact,atthetime 0 OSFandUSF&Gsignedtherelevantinsurancecontracts,"all p federalcourtdecisions[butonehad]beenconsistentintheir P supportofthecommonlawdefinition"ofunfaircompetitionas  "'palmingoff'or'passingoff,'thatis,usurpingthecommercial  p advantageofanotherbydeceptivelysubstitutingone'sowngoods   forthoseofthecompetitor."TerriD.Keville,Advertising @" InjuryCoverage:AnOverview,65S.Cal.L.Rev.919 , 954(1992).v vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  7        $  OSFnonethelesscontendsthatAddamax'scomplaint "& triggeredadutytodefendundertheadvertisinginjuryclauses @$( ofthepoliciesbecauseseveralclaimsintheAddamaxcomplaint % !* includingantitrust,Chapter93A,andinterferencewithbusiness `'", relationsclaimsconvey"unfaircompetition"incommonparlance.  Thedistrictcourtacknowledgedthat,"Inageneralsense,[such] @ violationsmightbethoughtofasaspeciesof'unfair   competition'becausetheyentailmethodsofcompetitionthatare `  illegalandthusunfair."OSF,2001WL1298878,at*7.However,  @ itultimatelyfoundOSF'sargumentunpersuasivebecausethe    insurancecontractisalegaldocument,andpartiessigningit `  should"expectthatalegaltermusedinthepolicywillbe   accordedthemeaningthatthecourtshavegivenit."Id.We 0  agree.Atreatiseonthetopicreinforcesthedistrictcourt's  analysis: P 8 Initsgeneralsense,"unfaircompetition"is 0 definedas"alldishonestorfraudulent  rivalryintradeandcommerce"(Black'sLaw p Dictionary),thusencompassingapotentially 8 largenumberofdifferentoffenses....P x x 8  N However,thedefinitionofunfair  competitionquotedabovegoesontostate  thattheterm"isparticularlyappliedtothe X practiceofendeavoringtosubstituteone's  p owngoodsorproductsinthemarketsfor 8 thoseofanotherhavinganestablished   reputationandextensivesales,bymeansof x! imitatingorcounterfeitingthename,title, @" size,shape,ordistinctivepeculiaritiesof  X# thearticle,ortheshape,color,label,  $ wrapper,orgeneralappearanceofthepackage !% ...theimitationbeingcarriedfarenough `"& tomisleadthegeneralpublicordeceivean (#x' unwarypurchaser,andyetnotamountingtoan #@( absolutecounterfeitortotheinfringement $ ) ofatrademarkortradename."Inthismore % * limitedmeaning,whichseemsmorelikelyto H&!+ beapplicableinthecontextofadvertising '`", injury,unfaircompetitionismuchthesame '(#- as...misappropriationofadvertising (#. ideasorstyleofdoingbusiness.h)$/ x x  T 0*%0 JeffreyW.Stempel,LawofInsuranceContractDisputes14.06,  at1422(2ded.2001)(quotingDonaldS.MaleckiandArthurL. @ Flitner,CommercialGeneralLiability6970(6thed.,1998)).     Therelevantsectionsofthepoliciesdefinecovered `  "advertisinginjuries"asthosearisingoutof"libel,slander,  @ defamation,violationofrightofprivacy,piracy,unfair    competition,orinfringementofcopyright,titleorslogan"(in `  thegeneralpolicy)and"(a)libel,slanderordefamation;(b)   infringementofcopyrightoroftitleorofslogan;(c)piracyor 0  unfaircompetitionorideamisappropriationunderanimplied  contract;(d)invasionoftherightofprivacy"(intheexcess P policy).Applyingtheinterpretiveprincipleofnoscitura 0 sociisw vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  8      ׀tolanguageinanalmostidenticalGCLpolicy,theSeventh p Circuitobservedthat: P 8 Awordsometimespicksupmeaningfromits  neighbors;andalltheothertermsinthe X listofwrongsinsuredundertherubricof  p "advertisinginjury"concernthemisuseof 8 information,asbefitstheword   "advertising."Piracyandtheinfringement x! ofcopyrights,titles(presumablyofbooks, @" songs,products,services,andsoforth),and  X# slogans(advertisingandother)aresimply  $ differentformsoftheft(broadlyconceived) !% ofinformation.Anddefamationinvolvesthe `"& useoffalseinformation,whileinvasionof (#x' therightofprivacytheuseoftrue,though #@( sometimesmisleadingoroffensive, $ ) information.Libelandslanderarethetwo % * halvesofdefamation....[I]ftortious H&!+ interference[andsimilarclaimsare]covered '`", bythepolicy,thepolicyhasabulgenot '(#- easytomakesenseofortoattributetothe  deliberatechoiceoftheparties.x x x }CurtisUniversal,Inc.v.SheboyganEmergencyMed.Servs.,43F.3d   1119,1124(7thCir.1994). `   Thetermssurrounding"unfaircompetition"inthe  @ advertisinginjuryprovisionsoftheUSF&Gpoliciesexclusively    denotecommunicativeharms(injuriesthatoccurasadirectresult `  ofcommunication),notillegalcoursesofconductthatmerely   involvecommunication.Wearenotpersuadedbytheappellant's 0  attempttoapplythelatterglosstotheterm,justastheSeventh  CircuitwasunmovedbythesametacticinCurtisUniversal:"[W]e P findithighlyimplausibletosupposethat'unfaircompetition' 0 inalistoftortsotherwiseconcernedmainlywithharmfulspeech p invariousforms(defamation,invasionoftherightofprivacy, P copyrightinfringement)wouldsweepunderthepolicyageneral,  albeitonlyprimafacie,liabilityforantitrustdamages"and  p othercausesofactionnotconstitutedbycommunicativeharms.   Id.at1123.y vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  9      ׀ @"    IV.PersonalInjury   B Theonlytermsinthe"personalinjury"sectionsofthe  twopoliciesthatpossiblypertaintoAddamax'ssuitareharms  p causedbycommunication.Theharmsaredefinedas   8 injuryarisingoutofoneormoreofthe @  followingoffensescommittedduringthe  X  policyperiod...(3)apublicationor    utterance(a)ofalibelorslanderorother    defamatoryordisparagingmaterial,or(b)a `  publicationorutteranceinviolationofan (x  individual'srightofprivacy;except @  publicationsorutterancesinthecourseof   orrelatedtoadvertising,broadcasting,   publishingortelecastingactivities H  conductedbyoronbehalfofthenamed ` insuredshallnotbedeemedpersonalinjury.B+ ` hp x ` XB( x x TheUmbrellaPolicyprovidingexcesscoveragesimilarlycovers h damagesfrom H 8  8   injuryarisingoutof...(b)the  publicationorutteranceofalibelor P slanderorotherdefamatoryordisparaging h materialorapublicationorutterancein 0 violationofanindividual'srightof  privacy;exceptpublicationsorutterancesin p thecourseoforrelatedtoadvertising 8 activities.UP  x x    Addamaxmakesnoreferencetoaclaimfordefamationor " disparagementineitherofitscomplaintsorinitsinitialdemand  !p$ lettertoOSF.Nonetheless,OSFarguesthatthecomplaints, "& consideredinlightofextrinsicevidenceeitherprovidedtoor @$( readilyknowablebyUSF&G,"adumbrate"defamationand % !* disparagementclaims.SeeContinentalCas.Co.,461N.E.2dat212 `'", ("iftheallegationsofthecomplaintare'reasonablysusceptible' (@$. ofaninterpretationthattheystateoradumbrateaclaimcovered  bythepolicyterms,theinsurermustundertakethedefense"). @    Maneuveringwithintheinterpretiveboundariesofthe   "adumbrate"standard,seesupranote3,OSFinsiststhatliability `  coverageistriggeredunderthepersonalinjuryprovisionsofits  @ policiesonthetheorythatAddamax's"damages[]allegedly    occurred,atleastinpart,becausethecommunications[byOSF] `  to[its]SponsorsandMembersabouttheselectionofSecureware   assuperiorloweredAddamaxinrankandestimation."OSFfurther 0  contendsthatsuch"allegedlyfalsestatements...[could]  prejudicetheplaintiffintheconductofitsbusiness...[and P therefore]aresufficienttostateaclaimfordisparagementas 0 toproductsanddefamationastothesourceofthesegoodsunder p Massachusettslaw." P ! ` XX! Asnoted,OSF'spersonalinjurycoverageextendsto  liabilityfrominjuriesarisingoutof"otherdefamatoryor  p disparagingmaterial,"andnotjusttoliabilityfor"defamation"   and"disparagement"actionsthemselves.Interpretingthisphrase @" inasimilarGCLpolicy,theSJCobservedthat"[d]isparagemeans,  $ amongotherthings,'tolowerinrankandestimationbyactions `"& orwords,'or'tospeakslightinglyof.'"BostonSymphony,545 #@( N.E.2dat1158(quotingWebster'sNewInternationalDictionaryof % * theEnglishLanguage750(2ded.1959)). '`",  OSFcontendsthatallofAddamax'sclaimsincludingits (#. antitrust,Chapter93A,andtortiousinterferenceclaimswere 0*%0 based(atleastinpart)onwordsandactionsofOSFthat +'2 explicitlyorimplicitlyloweredAddamaxinrankandestimation.  OSF'sinitialtenderofthedefensearguablyalertedUSF&Gtothe @ publicationofdisparaginganddefamatorymaterialsinvarious   forms:1)OSFadvertisementspromotingtheRFTprocessgenerally, `  2)theRFTprocessitself,3)a"SecurityRationaledocument"that  @ identifiedAddamaxandSecurewareasthetwocompaniescompeting    intheSecurityRFandjustifiedOSF'sselectionoftheSecureware `  product,4)additionaladvertisingafterthecompletionofthe   SecurityRFTannouncingtheselectionofSecurewareandtouting 0  theimpartialityoftheRFTprocess,and5)otherunspecified  publicationsreferredtoinAddamax'scomplaintlaudingthe P superiorcapabilitiesofSecureware.OSF'sretenderofthe 0 defensethroughthisdeclaratoryjudgmentactiondisclosedasixth p sourceofdefamatoryordisparagingmaterialsrumorsofAddamax's P impendingbankruptcyinthewakeofitslosstoSecurewareinthe  RFT.  p  Weassumearguendothatthesefacts,identifiedinthe   Addamaxcomplaintsorextrinsictothem,constituted"disparaging @" ordefamatorymaterial"intheBostonSymphonysenseof  $ diminishingAddamax'sreputation.WefurtherassumethatUSF&G `"& canbechargedwithknowledgeofalltheextrinsicfactscitedby #@( OSF.USF&Gdoesnotargue(withrespectfoOSF)thatretender % * ofthedefensethroughthisdeclaratoryjudgmentactionviolated '`", particularnoticerequirementsintheUSF&Gpolicies.See (#. TransamericaIns.Co.v.NorfolkandDedhamMut.FireIns.Co., 0*%0 279N.E.2d686,689(Mass.1972);seealsoHoppy'sOilServ., +'2 Inc.,v.InsuranceCo.ofNorthAmerica,783F.Supp.1505,1509  (D.Mass.1992)("Nodutytodefendortoparticipateinadefense @ canarisebeforetheinsurerhasnoticeofthesuitagainstthe   insured,oratleastoftheunderlyingclaimandthelikelihood `  ofsuit.").Moreover,Massachusettslawimposesabroaddutyto  @ investigateonliabilityinsurersaftertheinsuredhastendered    adefense.SeeMass.Gen.Lawsch.176D,3(9)(1998)("An `  unfairclaimsettlementpracticeshallconsistof...(d)[r]efusing   topayclaimswithoutconductingareasonableinvestigationbased 0  uponallavailableinformation").Nevertheless,weconcludethat  theseextrinsicfacts,viewedasaidsintheinterpretationofthe P Addamaxcomplaints,didnottriggeradutytodefendbecause 0 AddamaxwasnotallegingthatthematerialcitedbyOSFcausedits p injuries.SeeEkcoGroup,Inc.v.TravelersIndem.Co.,273F.3d P 409,415(1stCir.2001)("Theremustbesomecausalconnection  runningfromtheoffense...totheinjury.");KnollPharm.Co.  p v.AutomobileIns.Co.,152F.Supp.2d1026,1038(N.D.Ill.   2001)("Thecausalconnectionbetweentheinsured'sactivitiesand @" theallegedinjuryisthesalientfactorindeterminingadutyto  $ defend."). `"& ЀSignificantly,theUSF&Gpoliciesonlyprovidecoverage #@( for"injur[ies]arisingoutof...defamatoryordisparaging % * material...committed[orcreated]duringthepolicyperiod" '`", (emphasisadded).Interpretingidenticallanguageinthe (#. "advertisinginjury"clauseofasimilarpolicy,theSecond 0*%0 Circuitrecentlyheldthat"therelevantcausationissuewith +'2 regardtoinsurancecoverageisnotwhether'theinjurycouldhave  takenplacewithouttheadvertising,'but'whethertheadvertising @ didinfactz vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  10      ׀contributemateriallytotheinjury.'"R.C.Bigelow   v.Lib.Mut.Ins.Co.,287F.3d242,248(2dCir.2002)(quoting `  Frog,Switch,&Mfg.Co.v.TravelersIns.Co.,193F.3d742,750  @ n.8(3dCir.1999)).{  vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  11      ׀     WeconcludethatMassachusettscourtswouldimposea `  similar"materialcontribution"requirementwhenconstruingthis   languageinacommercialgeneralliabilityinsurancepolicy.Cf. 0  EaglePicherIndus.,Inc.v.LibertyMut.Ins.Co.,829F.2d227,  248(1stCir.1987)(predictingtheSJC'sresponsetoachoiceof P lawquestionthatthecourthadyettoaddressdirectly).To 0 determinethelevelofcausationimplicatedbythephrase"arising p outof"inaliabilityinsurancepolicyunderMassachusettslaw, P wehavepreviouslylookedtoMassachusettscasesconstruingthis  phraseintheautomobileinsurancecontext.SeeMerchantsIns.  p Co.ofNewHampshire,Inc.v.USF&G,143F.3d5(1stCir.1998).  InMerchantsIns.Co.,thepartiesdisputedwhethertheinsurer's @ dutytodefendwastriggeredunderapolicyprovisionthat   expandedthedefinitionofan"insured"to"thepersonor `  organizationshownintheSchedule...butonlywithrespectto  @ liabilityarisingoutof'yourwork'forthatinsuredbyorfor    you."Id.at9(emphasisadded).Todeterminethemeaningofthe `  phrase"arisingoutof",wereliedheavilyontheSJC'sopinion   inRischitelliv.SafetyIns.Co.,671N.E.2d1243(Mass.1996), 0  wherethecourtsoughttodeterminewhethertheinsured's  automobileinsurancepolicycoveredinjuriesthathesustained P whenanothermotoristphysicallyattackedhimaftertheirvehicles 0 wereinvolvedinanaccident.WeobservedinMerchantsIns.Co. p that P 8 [t]heMassachusettsSupremeJudicialCourt  confirmedinRischitelli:"Theexpression X 'arisingoutof'indicatesawiderrangeof  p causationthantheconceptofproximate 8 causationintortlaw."Bywayoffurther   explanation,Rischitelliwentontosay: x! "However,theexpressiondoesnotreferto @" allcircumstancesinwhichtheinjurywould  X# nothaveoccurred'butfor'theinvolvement  $ ofamotorvehicle."!% x x MerchantsIns.Co.,143F.3dat910. (#x'  TheSJCrecentlyreaffirmeditsinterpretationofthe $ ) phrase"arisingoutof"inRischitelli.SeeRuggerioAmbulance H&!+ Serv.,Inc.v.NationalGrangeMut.Ins.Co.,724N.E.2d295,299 '(#- (Mass.2000)("Theexpression'arisingoutof'indicatesawider h)$/ rangeofcausationthantheconceptofproximatecausationintort *H&1 law...However,theexpressiondoesnotrefertoall ,'3 circumstancesinwhichtheinjurywouldnothaveoccurred'but  for'theinvolvementofamotorvehicle."(citingRischitelli, @ 671N.E.2dat1245.)).Asnotedabove,the"contribute   materially"standardsimilarlyconnotesarangeofcausation `  narrowerthan"butforcausation":"[T]herelevantcausationissue  @ withregardtoinsurancecoverageisnotwhetherthe'theinjury    couldhavetakenplacewithouttheadvertising'[butfor `  causation],butwhethertheadvertisingdidinfactcontribute   materiallytotheinjury."R.C.Bigelow,287F.3dat248 0  (citationsomitted)(emphasisinoriginal).Consequently,the  "contributematerially"causationrequirementsetforthinR.C. P BigelowappearstofitcomfortablywithintheRuggerioparameters. 0  Thereisnoclaimfordefamationordisparagementinthe p Addamaxcomplaints,andnorelianceondefamatoryordisparaging P materialscirculatedbyOSFasacauseofinjury.Indeed,the  complaintspursueadifferentthemeentirelyby focusingonOSF's  p structureandactivitieswhilelargelyignoringitswords.This   presentationbeginswiththecomplaints'portrayalofthe @" consortiumasthesingularforceinthemarketforUNIXoperating  $ systemsoftware:"Addamax'smarketconsistedofOSF'sSponsors `"& aswellassmallercomputervendorsandsystemintegrators,the #@( overwhelmingmajorityofwhomarenonvotingMembersofOSF." % * Complaintat12,Addamaxv.OpenSoftwareFoundation,964F.Supp. '`", 549(D.Mass.1997)(emphasisadded);seealsoFirstAmended (#.  Complaintat910,17,34. 0*%0  Addamaxsubsequentlychroniclesthediminishing   purchasingpowerofvendorsoutsidetheOSFmembershipgroup,and @ assertsthatasoftwareproducer'sfailuretosuccessfullymarket   itsproducttoOSFwastantamounttoforeclosurefromtheentire `  market."Whereaspreviously...Addamaxhadapotentialmarket  @ ofnumerouscomputervendors,...theformationofOSFhas    causedaconsolidationofthatmarketintoonedominantcustomer, `  i.e.OSF.Asaresult,thesoftwaredevelopers,suchasAddamax,   thatarenotselectedbythecartelareforeclosedfromthe 0  market."Id.at1415;seealsoFirstAmendedComplaintat2223.  Notsurprisingly,thecomplaintsattributeAddamax'sinjuries P solelytothepurchasingdecisionsofOSFmemberswithout 0 mentioningvendorsoutsidetheOSFgroup: p 8 OSFanditsSponsors...haveforeclosed P AddamaxfromsellingitsB1stproducttothe  morethan70%oftheUNIXoperatingsystem  marketrepresentedbyOSFanditsmembership. X Accordingly,Addamaxhasbeeninjuredinits  p businessandpropertythroughthelossof 8 millionsofdollarsinpast,present,and   futureprofits,bylossofcustomersand x! potentialcustomers,bylossofgoodwill,and @" bytheprospectivedestructionofits  X# business. $ x x \Complaintat22,25,30(emphasisadded);seealsoFirstAmended (#x' Complaintat2021,25,3031,34. $ )  Thenoteworthyabsenceofanydefamationor H&!+ disparagementclaimagainstOSFisconsistentwithAddamax's '(#- understandingoftheUNIXsoftwaremarketasmemorializedinthe h)$/ complaints.IfvendorsoutsidetheOSFmembershipgroupwerea *H&1 minimalpresenceinthemarketforUNIXoperatingsystemsoftware, ,'3 anydisparagingordefamatorymaterialspublishedbyOSF(which  bythattimehadalreadydecidedtobundleSecureware'sproduct @ intoOSF/1)couldnothavemateriallycontributedtoAddamax's   injuries. `   NoextrinsicfactsordocumentsprofferedbyOSF  @ contradictAddamax'scharacterizationofOSFinitscomplaintsas    amonopsonistinthemarketforUNIXoperatingsystemsoftware, `  oralludetothepresenceofasignificantconsumerbaseoutside   ofOSF'smembership.| vXNI XXX-X-X XXNI  12      ׀Therefore,evenifweassumethatevery 0  extrinsicfactreferencedbyOSFwasproperlybroughttoUSF&G's  attentionwhenOSFtenderedthedefense,OSFcannotdemonstrate P thatthesefacts"contribute[d]materially"totheinjuries 0 allegedbyAddamaxinitscomplaint.R.C.Bigelow,287F.3dat p 248.Atworst,theseextrinsicfactssuggestthatOSF's P publicationofdisparagingmaterialsandpropagationofbankruptcy  rumorsadverselyimpactedAddamax'sbusinessrelationshipswith  p thecomparativelysmallnumberofcomputervendorsoutsidetheOSF   membershipgroup.Evenconstruingthesefactsinthelightmost @" favorabletoOSF,thefinancialimpactofOSF'swordspalesin  comparisontotheeconomiceffectofitsdeeds,whichforeclosed @ Addamaxfrom70%oftheentiremarketforitsUNIXoperating   systemsoftware.Indeed,byitsowntermsinthecomplaints, `  AddamaxdismisseslossesfromvendorsoutsideOSFasimmaterial:  @ "[T]hesoftwaredevelopers,suchasAddamax,thatarenotselected    bythecartelareforeclosedfromthemarket."Complaintat14 `  15;seealsoFirstAmendedComplaintat2223.Accordingly,we   concludethatanyinjuriesresultingfromthepublicationofthe 0  "extrinsicfacts"citedbyOSFarenotsufficientlymaterialto  satisfythe"arisingunder"requirementinthepersonalinjury P provisions.R.C.Bigelow,287F.3dat248. 0    V.Conclusion  P  Determiningwhethercomplaintsstateaclaimforagiven 0 causeofactionisarelativelystraightforwardmatter; p determiningwhethertheyadumbrate,orfaintlysketch,aclaimis P  amoredifficultinterpretivequestion.However,thereisa " discerniblelinebetweenadumbrationinacomplaintandthe  !p$ mischaracterizationofacomplaintbyaninsuredrelying "& creativelyonextrinsicfacts.AlthoughOSFmaydetectasketch @$( orsuggestionofcoveredclaimsinAddamax'scomplaints,andthe % !* extrinsicfactscited,wedonot.Wethereforeconcludethat `'", USF&GwasnotobligedtodefendtheAddamaxaction. (@$.  Affirmed.