The court determined that the insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in seeking a determination that a hotel was not the additional insured under its elevator repair company's policy. Aspen Spec. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Indem. Inc., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2413 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 7, 2015). 

   Michael Patalano was an elevator repairman employed by Transel Elevator Inc. Transel had a contract to maintain the elevators at Alphonse Hotel. The contract required Transel to name Alphonse as an additional insured on Transel's CGL policy. 

   Patalano was injured while working at the hotel. He sued Alphonse, alleging that while performing work for the hotel, the stairs he was on which he was descending collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Alphonse tendered to Ironshore, Transel's CGL carrier.

   The Ironshore policy defined an additional insured as:

. . . any . . . organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such organization have agreed in writing . . . that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy. Such person or organization is an additional insured only with respect to liability for "bodily injury" . . . caused in whole or in part, by:

1. Your acts or omissions; or

2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf;

in the performance of your ongoing operations for the additional insured.

    Ironshore denied additional insured status to Alphonse because: (1) Patalano's accident occurred when he was descending the interior stairway, and therefore the incident was "unrelated to" Transel's work and did not arise out of any Transel's "acts or omissions"; and (2) the complaint in the Patalano action alleged that Alphonse was solely negligent. 

   Alphonse's insurer, Aspen, sued for a declaratory judgment against Ironshore. Ironshore moved to dismiss the complaint. Aspen opposed the motion and moved for summary judgment.

   The court determined that Ironshore failed to meet its burden of establishing, prima face, that Alphonse was not an additional insured. Under New York case law, the phrase "caused by" in an additional insured endorsement did not materially differ from the phrase "arising out of." Where an employee was insured while performing the named insured's work pursuant to a written contract between the named insured and additional insured, there was a sufficient connection to trigger additional insured coverage and fault was immaterial.