Martinez v. General Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• based on evidence presented, trial court was entitled to find that the omission of insured’s son’s name was sufficiently material to the insurer’s acceptance of the risk to warrant a denial of coverage, even if the omission was unintentional
• based on evidence 10 presented, trial court was entitled to find that the omission of insured’s son’s name was sufficiently material to the insurer's acceptance of the risk to warrant a denial of coverage, even if the omission was unintentional
• “[T]o require the insurer ... to return the premium to the insured where the materially false statement or omission results ... in a denial of coverage only for a risk never assumed by the insurer or paid for by the insured is to give the insured an undeserved windfall-coverage for nothing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).