In Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Syufy Enterprises, Inc. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 321, a contractor was performing work for Syufy, a building owner. The contractor's employee, who had been working on the building's roof, was injured while descending through a hatch that provided the only roof access. The employee sued Syufy, which sought and received a defense from the contractor's liability insurer pursuant to an additional insured endorsement added to the policy in accordance with the terms of the contractor's written agreement with Syufy. That endorsement provided that Syufy would be covered under the policy, "but only with respect to liability arising out of the contractor's work for Syufy performed by or on behalf of the contractor." After the insurer settled the employee's suit, it sought contribution from Syufy because the defective hatch had caused the employee's injury. The trial court granted Syufy's motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Syufy, supra, 69 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 324-325.) The Syufy court reviewed a number of California and out-of-state authorities and concluded that the broad construction of the phrases "arising out of" or "arising from" adopted by those authorities clearly reflects the law in this state (and nearly everywhere else). Applying this principle, the court stated, "Under this commonsense approach, the employee's injury clearly 'arose out of' the work he was performing on the roof of Syufy's building. The relationship between the defective hatch and the job was more than incidental, in that the employee could not have done the job without passing through the hatch. The fact that the defect was attributable to Syufy's negligence is irrelevant, since the policy language does not purport to allocate coverage according to fault." (Syufy, supra, 69 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 328-329; )