The employer asserted the "positive work order" defense, which required proof that there was a specific policy in place, the claimant knew about the employer's policy, and that the claimant's conduct at the time of injury removed the claimant from the course of employment.

Both cases in this appeal were based on policy language that excluded UM coverage for pedestrians struck by a hit-and-run vehicle because a pedestrian, by definition, cannot occupy a covered vehicle.

A policy open to more than one reasonable interpretation is, by definition, ambiguous, and ambiguity is resolved in favor of coverage under well-settled insurance principles.

The Supreme Court of Arizona recently answered two questions certified by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona that both concerned how an insurer may or may not use depreciation in calculating the actual cash value (ACV) of damaged property.

Amy's had a comprehensive property policy that included an extension to cover the costs of loss avoidance and mitigation when the costs were incurred to combat a communicable disease.

Huntington Ingalls, according to the Supreme Court of Vermont, suffered "direct physical damage" because employees infected with COVID had been physically present at the facilities and unintentionally spread the virus to employees who were not ill.

Though the thigh bone is connected to the hip bone, they are not the same thing.

It is not uncommon to see workers compensation cases end up in court over whether the claimant's injuries both arose out of and in the course of their employment.

A workers compensation award does not have to be permanent or temporary in nature in order for the claimant to file a petition to reopen their claim based on a change in disability.

According to the court, a qualifying compensable injury had to arise from more than an employee's mere presence at the workplace.