Larry Golub Discusses NY High Court Ruling on Builders' Insurance Coverage
In The News | 1 min read
Apr 2, 2018
Larry Golub discussed in Law360 a recent New York Court of Appeals decision that held a construction manager didn't qualify as an additional insured under a contractor's general liability policy. Although the contractor had agreed in a contract with the project financier to acquire additional-insured coverage, the policy endorsement required additional-insured parties to enter into a direct written contract with the insured in order to qualify for coverage. The Court found the endorsement was facially clear and rejected coverage.
While an attorney who represents policyholders lamented the opinion as an "unfortunate decision for the construction industry," Golub said the ruling was "another straightforward policy interpretation exercise," adding: "If an additional insured needs to be on some other company's policy, that additional insured—which is usually a more sophisticated party such as a general contractor—needs to do its due diligence and make sure it is really covered."
Read "Builders' Coverage Doubts Deepened By NY High Court Ruling," on the Law360 website (subscription may be required)
Featured Insights

Press Release
Oct 9, 2026
Adam Topel Appointed Chair-Elect of the ABA’s TIPS Appellate Advocacy Committee

Press Release
Oct 8, 2026
Technology Service Corporation Closes on Acquisition by Blackstone-Backed Purchaser

Employment Law Observer
Oct 8, 2026
“We Didn’t Know” is No Longer an Employer Defense for Religious Accommodation Claims Under Title VII

In The News
Oct 8, 2026
Lucy Wang Analyzes What Insurers Need to Know About Two New California Laws

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Oct 8, 2026
The Rise of Management Service Organizations: How Lawyers and Lawmakers are Responding

In The News
Oct 7, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses Google’s Coverage Battle Over Social Media Addiction Claims

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 6, 2026
Mixed Messages Ongoing as Courts Disagree Whether Texts Constitute “Calls” Under the TCPA





