Gary v. Beazer Homes USA Inc., (Del. Ch., June 11, 2008), read opinion here. This case involved the interepretation of an employment agreement of a General Counsel who was fired. The parties disagreed about whether the terms of the agreement allowed for advancement or indemnification. The Chancery Court criticized what appeared to be the use of "bad boilerplate" form language that was made even murkier by ill-chosen modifications. However, the court avoided the "resulting interpretive quagmire" because none of the terms of the employment agreement applied after the dismissal of the person claiming coverage.