The court determined whether "not covered" referred to scope of coverage or collectibility.

The United States Appellate Court reviewed the insurance policy which only listed the business as a named insured.

The court analyzed whether the gun retailer's actions were an accident, as defined by Missouri law, or intentional with foreseeable consequences.

The court made its decision after determining whether a cooling tower is a building or a structure.

A United States Court of Appeals found both the insurer's and the insured's interpretation reasonable.

The court reviewed the elements required in the Utah Code to prove a worker is owed permanent total disability benefits.

The Arizona Supreme Court rejected the standard used by a lower court in favor of a subjective standard focused on the knowledge of the parties.

The court made its determination after analyzing the Insurance Code and the state's no-fault act.

The West Virginia Appellate Court affirmed the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Board of Review after finding that the three elements of compensability were met.

The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insured's argument that the disputes with the insurer were coverage issues and not disputes on the amount of the loss.