Red Roof Inns has eleven pending civil lawsuits alleging that Red Roof benefited from the trafficking. The court determined if that constituted an occurrence under the insurance policy.

A Florida Circuit Court made the ruling after analyzing the policy's defintion and considering what an ordinary person would reasonably expect the exclusion to apply to.

The court analyzed whether certain policy terms were ambiguous and whether an endorsement's coverage was illusory.

The California Appellate Court looked at the policy's continuous or repeated seepage or leakage exclusion and whether State Farm presented enough evidence in support of the claim denial.

The Delaware Superior Court ruled in favor of AMC after looking at the policy's definition of "loss".

The court looked at the policy's definition of vacant in determining the case, and whether customary operations were being run.

The court ruled based on the language found in the endorsement.

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.