Yes, I am. I’m pretty behind on this thread and insurance isn’t exactly my area of expertise, but it appears from a brief skim that MB’s insurance company denied him coverage based on the nature of what he was charged with. Now that he’s been acquitted and the civil case has been dismissed, he thinks his insurance should pay his fees because he was acquitted, therefore no crime was committed, and the company’s decision not to provide a defense/pay his fees was in error.
Many insurance companies will not cover someone if a crime has been committed, so the denial of coverage based on the charges seems normal. It looks to me like his argument is now that he’s been acquitted, he’s asking to be reimbursed by the insurance company for what the insurance company should have covered to begin with because he did not commit a crime.
I’m not fully surprised that MB’s insurance company defended RC, depending on the nature of their business relationship and the nature of her charges, it’s possible they were required to defend her.