This is an interesting case involving an artwork. The case centered on the claim of the building owner against an insurance company demanding that the insurance company defends against the artist who sued because his artwork was covered over.

To resolve this dispute the court has to consider issues involving artist; copyright; defamation, invasion of privacy, libel (based on false statement); unfair business practice and of course, insurance law.

From this case, we learn that insurance coverage is very complicated and we should always examine our insurance policies if we are involved in a law suit. We also learn about the interesting rights of artists and their works.

In 1986, the city of San Francisco paid $40,000 to artist Jesus Campusano to paint a mural. The site chosen was a former factory building. After 6 weeks, the artist finished a 46 by 46 foot painting of colored geometric abstractions.

In 1998, the building owners bought an insurance policy. Later in 1998, the owners found a tenant and began repairing the building.

There were several leaks in the building and the owners covered it with Kel Bond a opaque white sealant. The painting was effectively covered over.

The artist sued for $500,000 based on Visual Artist's Rights Act ( "VARA" )of 1990 and California Art Preservation Act alleging the building owners intentionally and knowingly altered, mutilated and distorted the art work.

VARA gives the artist a moral right to prevent the use of the artist's name on a distorted piece of art originally produced by the artist.

The court considered insurance law where the duty to defend is broader than the duty to pay damage.

However, there was :

(1). No personal injury;
(2). No advertising injury -- covering the wall may be advertising for the space to be rented for advertisements but the building and space was already leased;
(3). No false statement -- the art disappeared -- covered over entirely;
(4). no invasion of privacy -- the act was covering the wall.

Therefore, no coverage.

Finally, it is interesting to note that in China an artist who presented the Calligraphy "TAU" to Dow Jones is now suing Dow Jones for using the that word "TAU" in Dow Jones advertisements.