In National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 709, a subcontractor's employee was injured as a result of the general contractor's sole negligence. When the injured employee sued the general contractor, the general contractor sought a declaration that it was entitled to indemnification under a written indemnity agreement between it and the subcontractor, which provided that the subcontractor would indemnify it from any and all claims "arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of the subcontract work," including the active and passive negligence of the general contractor. However, the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the general contractor was specifically excepted from indemnification. (Id. at p. 717, fn. 1.) The subcontract between the general contractor, Tutor-Saliba, and its subcontractor, Pangborn, required that Pangborn name the general contractor as an additional insured by the use of a standard endorsement found in an Insurance Services Office (ISO) policy (ISO form G116) or its equivalent. ISO form G116 provides, in language almost identical to that here, that coverage does not apply "'to bodily injury or property damage arising out of any act or omission of the additional insured or any of his employees, other than general supervision of work performed for the additional insured by the named insured.'" ( Id. at p. 719, fn. 4.) The endorsement that was actually issued included the restrictive language that Tutor-Saliba was an insured only to the extent that it "is held liable" for Pangborn's acts arising out of and in the course of operations by Pangborn. The appellants argued that whereas the actual endorsement was limited to liability of Pangborn's acts or omissions for which Tutor-Saliba may be held liable, the ISO endorsement provided coverage for the operations of Pangborn as well as Tutor-Saliba's acts or omissions in connections with its general supervision of Pangborn's operations. The Court of Appeal found that this was a distinction without a difference: "Even the supposedly more comprehensive ISO form G116 endorsement (which Pangborn failed to secure) still only required additional insured coverage for Tutor-Saliba's 'general supervision' over Pangborn, not for its own independent acts or omissions." ( Id. at p. 720.) The National Union court noted that Tutor-Saliba "could have insisted upon a broader additional insured endorsement with no language limiting coverage to its derivative liability based on its failure to supervise Pangborn's acts." ( Id. at p. 721.) The appellate court also found the endorsement to be consistent with the public interest in preventing accidents by imposing the financial risk of higher insurance premiums on the party actively creating the risk.