by “offenses that result from the advertising of your products or work,” language found in one of the disputed policies). Because the causation language is missing in the policies here, however, these decisions are not directly applicable. Second, the policy definition in this case does not include the terms “unfair competition” or “piracy” which are the somewhat open-ended terms on which expansive claims of coverage have traditionally been laid. See, e.g. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Siliconix, Inc., 729 F.Supp. 77, 79 (N.D.Cal.1989) (finding that the term “piracy” could incorporate patent infringement). Two recent California Supreme Court decisions plainly set forth the analysis which this court must use in deciding the motion: Bank of the West, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 (<HOLDING>), and AIU Insurance Co. v. FMC Corp., 51 Cal.3d
holding that pecuniary damages are not property damages under insureds policy holding that insurable interest doctrine does not entitle deceased insureds estate to a reformation of the insurance contract but a constructive trust on the policy proceeds holding that there must be a causal connection between an insureds advertising and an alleged injury to trigger coverage for an advertising injury holding that an insureds payments for violations of the state unfair business practices act calbus  profcode  17203 are not insurable damages under the insureds advertising injury insurance policies holding that insurance company could sue in insureds name following assignment of insureds interest against tortfeasor