The court was faced with the question of whether two robberies carried out by two seemingly different groups constituted a single occurrence or multiple occurrences.

The court found the potential for coverage because the policy at issue applied to two structures that were on the same, undivided parcel of land.

The judges acknowledged the policyholder had had a string of bad luck, but even the worst of luck cannot overcome policy conditions.

Even though a company contractor painted over the posters based on incorrect instructions, he still acted intentionally in doing so.

The auto insurer refused coverage for an injury incurred while exiting a vehicle.

The policy required a written notice be sent to the insurer's claims department, but the insured emailed notice to the insurer's underwriting division. This led to less than satisfactory consequences for the insured.

An email from the plaintiff to the defendant expressed disappointment and made a request based on that disappointment, but there was no demand for relief, monetary or otherwise.

Century Waste alleged that a deficient reservation of rights letter had prejudiced their case in an underlying lawsuit.

An E&O insurer obligated to defend an insured sought to recover some of the defense costs from the carrier that issued the insured's CGL policy.

The ambiguity in a catch-all exclusion could not be resolved using the principle of ejusdem generis.