Whether a party must reassert in Rule 50 motions a purely legal issue resolved adversely at summary judgment to preserve the issue for appellate review

QUESTION PRESENTED In Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729 (2023), this Court held that “a post-trial motion under Rule 50 is not required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment,” and it defined a purely legal issue as one “that can be resolved without reference to any disputed facts.” 598 U.S. at 735-36. In this insurance-coverage dispute, the court of appeals paid lip service to Dupree. Nonetheless, the court refused to review the merits of petitioner’s summary-judgment coverage-exclusion argument, which was based on facts alleged in respondent’s complaint and described by respondent as undisputed at summary judgment. That holding sharply conflicts with this Court’s decision in Dupree and warrants grant of the petition, vacatur of the judgment below, and remand for further consideration in light of Dupree. The question presented is: Whether a party must reassert in Rule 50 motions a purely legal issue resolved adversely at summary judgment to preserve the issue for appellate review.