using the same phraseology to assist us in divining legislative intent.”). 13 . See, e.g., Toops, 72 F.3d at 487; Hargrove v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 780 So.2d 454, 463 (La.Ct.App.2001); Wolverine Ins. Co. v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 415 F.2d 1182, 1184 (6th Cir.1969) ("The right to control of equipment is generally regarded as the critical distinction between the 'hired automobile’ and the 'nonowned automobile’ for insurance contract purposes.”). Couch on Insurance § 118:46 ("The key inquiry regarding whether an automobile will fall within the hired automobiles provision of the policy is whether the insured exercised dominion, control or the right to direct the use of the vehicle.”). But see Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 147 N.H. 369, 373, 787 A.2d 870, 873 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 14 . In contrast to the dispute over whether
holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth holding that the district court correctly declined to instruct the jury that the government was required to prove as an element of the offense that the defendant did not intend to establish a life with his wife holding that where a policy fails to define hired auto the common definition of hire does not require an element of control and the court declined to add this restrictive requirement to the policy holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage