In Blackhawk Corp. v. Gotham Ins. Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1090, the liability policy expressly excluded damage "'attributable to any "operations" of the insured.'" The policy identified only Blackhawk and its related companies as "'the insured.'" (Id. at p. 1096.) Thus, Blackhawk contended the exclusion did not pertain to acts of independent contractors. The court rejected Blackhawk's contention. It reasoned, ". . . Blackhawk did its grading and other site preparation work through independent contractors. Thus, while it is true that the contractors were not named insureds, their work was . . . 'attributable to' the operations of the insured." (Id. at p. 1095.) Moreover, the policy defined "'"operations"'" as "'any act, error or omission on the part of the insured,'" and the court found the contractors acted "'on the part of the insured.'" (Id. at p. 1095.) In Blackhawk, because the exclusion restricted its application to "'"operations" of the insured,'" Blackhawk argued the exclusion applied only to "'the insured'" named in the policy, i.e. it applied to Blackhawk, but not Blackhawk's subcontractors. (Blackhawk Corp. v. Gotham Ins. Co., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1095.) The court rejected Blackhawk's contention and found the exclusion as written applied to both Blackhawk and its subcontractors. (Ibid.)