Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,500+ case briefs...

Eyeblaster, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
613 F.3d 797 (2010)


Eyeblaster, Inc. (Eyeblaster) (plaintiff) is an online marketing-campaign management company that creates online, interactive advertising. Eyeblaster creates interactive ads that use cookies, JavaScript, and Flash. Eyeblaster does not employ spyware or expose viewers of its ads to spam, viruses, or malware. Eyeblaster purchased a general-liability insurance policy from Federal Insurance Company (FIC) (defendant). Pursuant to this policy, FIC had a duty to defend Eyeblaster against lawsuits arising from property damage caused by a covered occurrence. Property damage was defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including resulting loss of use of that property . . . or loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” Software was excluded from the definition of tangible property. David Sefton sued Eyeblaster. Sefton’s amended complaint alleged that Eyeblaster had infected Sefton’s computer with spyware. After that initial alleged infection, Sefton claimed that his computer stopped working, causing him to incur loss. Although Sefton’s computer became operational without repair, it suffered from various other problems, such as pop-ups, slower performance, targeted advertising, and a hijacked browser. After Sefton filed each complaint, Eyeblaster turned over defense of the complaint to FIC. FIC denied all coverage, because, it claimed, the lawsuit did not assert claims of bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident or covered occurrence. Although Sefton alleged property damage, he did not allege that an accident or occurrence caused the property damage. Eyeblaster sued FIC, seeking a declaration that FIC had a duty to defend Eyeblaster in the Sefton lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment to FIC, upon finding that the Sefton complaint alleged only damage to software, which was excluded under the policy. Eyeblaster appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Gibson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial