Goldberg v. Baker

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that additional insureds cannot claim coverage under a policy that has been rescinded or rendered void due to material misrepresentations of the named insured
• comparing the risk of “exterior construction work with a tower crane at a height many stories above grade” with the risk of “interior drywall installation”
• a policy rescinded due to misrepresentations is “deemed never to have existed to create coverage in the first place” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[T]he CGL policy’s language is ambiguous as to whether the exclusion precludes from coverage any limited liability company not shown as a named insured in the CGL policy’s declarations (Admiral’s view) or only limited liability companies (if any

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).