It's an insurance coverage case that involves whether a lawsuit that alleges infringement of the right of publicity is covered by a insurance policy that covers violations of the right to privacy (holding: yes) and whether any such coverage is excluded by an exclusion that bars coverage of claims involving intellectual property (holding: also yes). So, in short, an insurance coverage case, which would normally be of interest only to those in that field.
Which is indeed the case. The only difference being that the underlying lawsuit involved a claim by an actress, Tara Radcliffe, that the defendant used her image (after she did an excercise video for them) in excess of their contractual rights. Which got me thinking about whether I had ever seen Ms. Radcliffe in anything (answer: no), what it must be like to be a struggling actress (answer: difficult, very), and what kind of information one needs to put on the internet when one's desperate for work in that field. The answers are here and here.
In short, it's not a field for the shy or faint of heart.