BatesCarey partner Jordon Steinway delivered two significant victories for Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company in the ongoing nationwide model image and likeness coverage litigation arising from nightclub advertising claims. 

The rulings, issued one day apart by courts in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the District of Connecticut, enforced the policy’s Exhibitions and Related Marketing (ERM) Exclusion and held that Clear Blue owed no coverage for claims that insured nightclubs misappropriated professional models’ images and likenesses in social media and promotional advertising.

On Thursday, July 9, 2026, the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, granted Clear Blue’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in Posada et al. v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company. The underlying action involved claims that Palm Beach Toro, Inc. d/b/a El Torito Sport Pub & Cantina used the plaintiffs’ images and likenesses in social media advertisements and related promotional materials for nightclub events. After the underlying plaintiffs entered into a settlement, consent judgment, covenant not to execute, and assignment with Palm Beach Toro, they pursued coverage from Clear Blue as assignees.

The Palm Beach County court held that the ERM Exclusion barred coverage. The court found that the underlying advertisements involved named and themed nightclub events and that a nightclub event advertised to draw customers, attendance, or attention to the venue qualifies as a “promotional event” under the ordinary meaning of that phrase. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ illusory coverage argument, adopted in full the reasoning of the Middle District of Florida’s May 2026 ruling in Sampedro v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company, and entered judgment for Clear Blue on all claims.

The next day, on Friday, July 10, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a complete win for Clear Blue in Nobriga et al. v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company. In Nobriga, professional models alleged that Clear Blue’s insured, Mr. Happy’s, used their images, likenesses, and advertising ideas without consent in advertising materials for an adult entertainment venue in Waterbury, Connecticut. After the underlying action was resolved, the plaintiffs pursued Clear Blue as assignees of the insured, asserting breach of contract, declaratory judgment, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA) claims.

The court granted Clear Blue’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment in full. On the coverage motion, the court held that the ERM Exclusion was not illusory and unambiguously applied to the underlying advertising claims because the advertisements qualified as advertising for “promotional events.” On the summary judgment motion, the court held that the plaintiffs could not proceed under Connecticut’s direct-action statute because they had not obtained a judgment against the insured. The court further held that, even as contractual assignees, the plaintiffs failed to establish recoverable damages through admissible evidence. The court dismissed the CUTPA and CUIPA claims and denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees incurred in the coverage action. 

These rulings follow BatesCarey’s May 2026 victory for Clear Blue in Sampedro v. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company in the Middle District of Florida. In Sampedro, the court likewise entered judgment for Clear Blue at the pleadings stage, holding that the same ERM Exclusion barred coverage for model image claims arising from social media advertising for nightclub events.

Together, the Sampedro, Palm Beach Toro, and Nobriga rulings create a powerful sequence of wins for Clear Blue in this nationwide litigation category. The decisions provide important persuasive authority for insurers facing model image and likeness claims arising from nightclub advertising, social media promotion, and promotional event marketing.