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.

A church and its governing evangelical association were each found vicariously liable for injuries caused by a church employee who was acting in the scope of his employment.

An insurer disagreed with its insured about whether it had been surface water or rain water that caused water damage to the interior of the insured's home.

The manufacturer of an alcoholic energy drink argued that the liquor liability exclusion in its CGL policy didn't apply because the exclusion was inapplicable to manufacturers.