Individual words and their placement in insurance policy forms are what we use to interpret coverage: to trigger it, to deny it, to negotiate it. Courts that are called upon to rule on whether there is coverage in a particular situation do this all the time. They review the arguments for and against coverage, consider the wording of the policy forms, and review past reasoning in order to determine not what the words say, but what they mean.

In some instances the results are different, depending upon the jurisdiction that is handling the case and the arguments that have been made for or against coverage. An example is how various courts interpret the word "occupying" for purposes of auto coverage.

One interpretation of this word was handed down this fall by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case involved a woman, Barbara Bennett, who was struck on the knee while walking along an Ohio roadway. After being hit by the car, she was thrown onto its hood. She sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, which insured the car, seeking a declaration that she was entitled to coverage under the State Farm policy covering the car that had struck her. She argued that being on the hood should be considered "occupying" the car and therefore should trigger coverage.