The appeals court agreed with the insurer. The court noted that, in the circuit court, Community only presented evidence of one specific act during the policy period that allegedly slandered, libeled, or disparaged Hoffman. Specifically, Community argued that its website slandered, libeled, or disparaged Hoffman by listing projects Community's employees had worked on without indicating that Hoffman was the firm that completed the projects. However, the court did not see this as libel, slander, or disparagement.

 The court said that the website of the insured did not libel or slander Hoffman as determined by Wisconsin case law. Moreover, common law listed the following elements for an action for defamation: a false statement; communicated by speech, conduct, or in writing to a person other than the one defamed; and the communication is unprivileged and tends to harm one's reputation, lowering him or her in the estimation of the community or deterring third persons from associating or dealing with him or her. The court found that the information on Community's website did not meet these requirements. Moreover, the representations on Community's website did not harm Hoffman's reputation; it simply gave Community employees credit for projects they completed at Hoffman, without listing Hoffman as the supervising firm.

 As for alleged disparagement, the court said that the definition of the word means to "diminish the reputation or diminish respect for". The court found that the information on the website did not meet this definition. The court said that it is difficult to see how the website could have diminished Hoffman's esteem, reputation, or respect by including information that did not even reference Hoffman in any way.

 The appeals court concluded that Community's website did not libel, slander, or disparage Hoffman. Thus, the publication of the website did not qualify as personal or advertising injury under Acuity's policy. The insurer made a prima facie case for summary judgment and the insured did not set forth any facts demonstrating that a disputed issue of material fact exists. The judgment of the circuit court was reversed and remanded.

 Editor's Note: The Wisconsin Appeals Court correctly noted that personal and advertising injury is a defined term in the general liability policy, and unless the allegations against the insured specifically meet the definition, the policy does not provide coverage. In this case, the insured said the allegations made against it in the complaint amounted to personal and advertising injury, but the appeals court found no proof and no facts that the actions of the insured or its employees fulfilled the definition. Therefore, the court ruled that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured against claims for personal and advertising injury.