The court determined whether Meta's conduct was deliberate or accidental in ruling whether the insurers had a duty to defend.

A United States Court of Appeals decision came down to the contract's inclusion of a single three-letter word.

The appellate court determined if there was one occurrence, due to COVID, or 29 occurrences, due to governmental shutdown orders.

A $1.3 million lesson: the Court of Appeals ruled that the sublimit applied since the insured failed to show duty to advise and reliance.

The claimant raised four arguments to the court, including an alleged lack of good faith, and violation of statutes.

The court made a determination on whether the insured was allowed to have a loss consultant testify to an estimate that included matching-related costs.

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.