JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Tyler Williams pled guilty to possession of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based on four previous Kentucky robbery convictions, the district court designated Williams as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Williams appeals, arguing that this designation was improper. We affirm.

SILER, Circuit Judge. Delek US Energy, Inc. (“Delek”) and Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, LLC (“Cypress”), as Intervenor-Appellants, appeal the district court’s order denying appellants’ motions to compel Michael Becker (“Becker”) to arbitration. We REVERSE and REMAND.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Insurers routinely provide businesses with commercial general liability policies to reimburse them for liabilities resulting from accidents (such as a grocery store customer slipping on a negligently maintained wet floor). See 9A Steven Plitt et al., Couch > Nos. 21-3412/3442 P.I. & I. Motor Express, Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co. Page 2 on Insurance §§ 129:1–:3 (3d ed.), Westlaw (database updated June 2022). But these policies are not substitutes for workers’ compensation insurance. They thus typically exclude liabilities arising from a workers’ compensation law or from an injury to an employee. See id. § 129:11. The liability at issue in this case sits in the unclear middle between the two types of insurance.

After a truck driver suffered an injury, a state agency found that P.I. & I. Motor Express (“Motor Express”) was the driver’s “statutory” employer (a unique workers’ compensation concept). But Motor Express had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for this truck driver, so the driver could sue Motor Express in tort. Motor Express settled his tort suit. It then sought to recover most of the settlement amount from RLI Insurance Company, which had issued it a commercial general liability policy. RLI refused to pay on the ground that Motor Express sought workers’ compensation coverage. The district court concluded that the policy could cover Motor Express’s claim, and a jury found for the company. We must decide two questions about the policy’s language: Did the tort settlement arise “under” a workers’ compensation law? And was the driver a Motor Express “employee” within the meaning of the policy? Ultimately, we agree with the district court’s interpretation of the policy and reject RLI’s other challenges to the court’s trial management. We thus affirm.