Upon reading the text, Briana blew a gasket.  Needless to say, Tiffany was immediately uninvited to the wedding.  But it didn’t end there.   Oh no.      
      
Briana filed suit against Tiffany in District Court in Ward County, North Dakota for defamation.  As she saw it, Tiffany’s text was tantamount to libel as it wrongly accused her of having poor taste in fashion -- a reputational besmirching that Briana could not bear.  

Tiffany counter-claimed for $800 for the cost of the dress and shoes that she no longer needed following her disinvitation.

Tiffany’s homeowner’s insurer undertook her defense as the policy’s liability section included defamation as part of its “personal injury” coverage.

But Briana did not fare as well.  Her homeowner’s insurer denied coverage as it concluded that there were no damages being sought because of “bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal injury.”

The underlying litigation was a war.  While Tiffany’s defense costs were being funded by her insurer, Briana was on her own to fight the counter-claim.  Her defense costs reached $97,000, with a third covered by a Go Fund Me campaign, which included a generous contribution from the American Mauve Society. 

After a year, the court dismissed all claims, concluding that the bridesmaid’s dress was in fact so hideous that Tiffany was protected by truth being a complete defense. The court also held that Tiffany could not recover for the cost of the dress and shoes.  Even if the relationship between bride and bridesmaid is contractual – and the court did not reach this issue of first impression – Briana had a reasonable basis to breach it based on the text messages that Tiffany had sent.

But the saga continued.  Briana filed suit against her insurer – Peace Garden Insurance Co. -- for breach of the duty to defend, arguing that it had wrongfully concluded that the counter-claim did not seek damages because of “property damage.”  She sought to recover the $66,000 in defense costs that she had borne.   

As Briana saw it, Tiffany was seeking damages under the “property damage” definition that includes “loss of use of tangible property that has not been physically injury.”

The court in Briana Monroe v. Peace Garden Insurance Co., No. 2024-28 (Dist. Ct. Mont. May 22, 2025) (Ward County) held that Tiffany had lost the use of the dress and shoes for the wedding, and, therefore, was seeking damages because of “property damage.”    

In concluding that Briana was entitled to recover her defense costs, the court looked to the California appeals court’s 2018 decision in Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. for guidance.  Based on Thee Sombrero, the court rejected the argument that Tiffany had not lost the use of the dress and shoes because she could still wear them for any other occasion. 

The court explained its decision: “Nobody disputes that Tiffany Sherman can still use the dress and custom dyed sky magenta mauve shoes.  So, on one hand, there has been no loss of their use.  But, and for reasons not missed by anyone involved in this sad saga – other than the bride, Briana Monroe – she never, in a million years, would.  And certainly not near restricted air space.”