In re the Claim of Goldsmith

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a provider of a general liability policy had no duty to defend or indemnify claims of negligent supervision because an automobile exclusion barred coverage of 17 those claims
• interpreting “arising out of’ similarly in the context of an exclusion provision
• “[W]hatever theory of liability the resourceful attorney may fashion from the circumstances of a client struck by an automobile, it remains that the immediate and efficient cause of the injury is, in fact, the automobile.”
• “whatever theory of liability the resourceful attorney may fashion from the circumstances of a client struck by an automobile, it remains that the immediate and efficient cause of the injury is, in fact, the automobile”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).