<p>NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not &quot;constitute precedent or be binding upon any court .&quot; Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1027-18T4 SUPERIOR INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MERCER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a MARKEL CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. ___________________________________ Submitted March 16, 2020 – Decided July 10, 2020 Motion for reconsideration granted.1 Argued October 22, 2020 – Decided November 10, 2020 1 The order granting reconsideration and recalling the opinion was entered because appellant's original oral argument request had been overlooked by the court. Before Judges Fasciale and Rothstadt. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-1518-16. Mark R. Sander argued the cause for appellant (Thomas, Thomas &amp; Hafer, LLP, attorneys; Mark R. Sander and Charles W. Skriner, on the briefs). Eugene Killian, Jr argued the cause for respondent Superior Integrated Solutions, Inc. (The Killian Firm, P.C., attorneys; Eugene Killian, Jr. on the brief). PER CURIAM In this dispute over an insurer's duty to defend, defendant Mercer Insurance Company of New Jersey, Inc. (Mercer), appeals from the Law Division's July 10, 2018 order granting summary judgment to Mercer's insured, plaintiff Superior Integrated Solutions, Inc. (Superior) and to third-party defendant Evanston Insurance Company a/k/a Markel Corporation (Evansto n); a September 14, 2018 order denying in part Mercer's reconsideration motion; and from the September 21, 2018 entry of a final judgment against Mercer in the amount of $337,495.73 in favor of Superior. Superior's complaint arose from Mercer's refusal to defend Superior against claims made by a competitor, Reynolds &amp; Reynolds Company (Reynolds) in a 2012 lawsuit. In that action, Reynolds alleged that Superior infringed upon Reynolds's copyrighted computer program in its attempt to solicit Reynolds's customers and persuade them to use Superior's services. A-1027-18T4 2 On appeal, Mercer argues that it had no duty to defend Superior under the &quot;advertising injury&quot; coverage provided in its policy and, even if covered, Reynolds's claims against Superior were excluded from coverage by other policy provisions because Superior's acts were intentional and related to computer programing activities. In addition, Mercer argues that Superior's activities began before Mercer's policy was in force, and the motion judge miscalculated the amount of fees and costs incurred by Superior during the underlying action. We affirm. I. A. Superior coordinates and integrates software applications for car dealers' use in managing their financial and customer information. Superior purchased a liability policy from Mercer in 2011, which it renewed for an additional year beginning in November 2012. Under section 1 of Part II B of the policy, Mercer was obligated to defend Superior in any action brought against it for, among other claims, &quot;damages for . . . advertising injury covered by this insurance.&quot; That obligation expressly excluded ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4804791/superior-integrated-solutions-inc-vs-mercer-insurance-company-of-new/">Original document</a>