Attorneys for the defendants cite the dissenters' lament: "The high court has given the intermediate appellate courts little guidance to govern ... factual sufficiency of noneconomic damages," or how to "conduct a 'meaningful review' of them."

The Sixth Circuit compared Quest's complaint to each insurer's policy to determine whether any the slew of opioid suits against Quest could require either insurer to indemnify Quest for damages.

The debate before the Sixth Circuit rested on a single difference in opinion: were the damages sought in the opioid suits against Quest "because of bodily injury" under the policies from Motorists and Westfield?

The debate before the Sixth Circuit rested on a single difference in opinion: were the damages sought in the opioid suits against Quest "because of bodily injury" under the policies from Motorists and Westfield?

Does water from a water main break fall into the exclusion for water under the surface?

"The defense turned what should have been a straightforward matter—one that should have been settled very early on—into an exceedingly complicated and expensive one," said attorney Todd L. Wallen.

The related cases are In re: Watson Grinding & Manufacturing Co. and In re: Watson Valve Services Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division.

An analysis of the personal auto endorsement PP 33 31 Pet Injury Coverage.

PP 33 31 Pet Injury Coverage Personal Auto Policy endorsement.

In this Fraud of the Week, the dash cam proves critical in catching the fraudster.