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.

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.