The Court adjudicated that: (1) insurer did not have duty under the insurance policy to pay for damage to Plaintiff’s personal property in the water loss claim; (2) insurer did not have a duty to intervene in Plaintiff’s dispute with a third-party contractor; and (3) insurer did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from alleged asbestos exposure. The decision regarding personal property coverage effectively ruled as a matter of law that Plaintiff had been overpaid on the claim. Thus, the case settled very shortly thereafter for a “cost waiver.”