In this case, the determination of coverage involves whether or not an additional insured is entitled to a duty to defend when a third-party is injured.

A trucking company argued that part of the damages the court had ordered the company to pay were not compensable.

A man sought coverage for removing methamphetamine residue from his rental property after his tenant smoked methamphetamine indoors.

A man argued that corrosion damage to the interior of the fuse box in his car was covered under the "comprehensive" portion of his policy.

The court examined whether the policy limit for a group insurer applied per loss or in the aggregate.

A commercial property owner unsuccessfully argued it was entitled to a defense as an additional insured on a CGL policy issued to a plumbing company hired to install a trash pump on the commercial property.

The insured argued his homeowners insurer should cover a water loss because the water that leaked into his basement never touched the earth's surface.

A policy listed a symbol next to both comp and collision coverages but only listed premium under comp. The claimant who believed coverage applied sued after coverage was denied. The court found the policy ambiguous and ruled for the insured and claimant.

When a loss occurs to multiple locations for the same occurrence, does coverage applied per occurrence or per location?

An insurer denied a claim made under a commercial property policy based on the policy's water backup exclusion.