While the injury occurred in the course of employment, the court considered whether it arose from employment, and determined if the risk was a mixed risk or a personal risk.

The court looked at the insurance policy to determine if the daughter of a named insured was an insured for a temporary substitute auto. It also looked at whether a passenger was "occupying" or "using" the vehicle in determining their insured status.

The court reversed the ruling of the lower courts and affirmed the standard by which workplace injuries due to everyday movements should be reviewed.

The court looked at the contract language and the state's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Laws, and what causal standard should be used in making their ruling.

The South Carolina Supreme Court looked at the Joint Employer Doctrine to determine if both employers would be held responsible for the workers' injuries.

A South Carolina District Court examined whether a liquor liability's assault and battery exclusion was applicable.

The court analyzed the Massachusetts Standard Policy and statute on actual cash value in making their determination.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court's order based on their interpretation of the insurance contract.

The court made their determination based on the policy language of each individual contract.

The court made their determination based on the policy language of each individual contract.