In City of New York v. Evanston Insurance Company 39 AD3d 153, 830 N.Y.S.2d 299 [2d Dept. 2007], a CGL insurance policy contained a blanket additional insured endorsement that is almost identical to the endorsement in the Investors policy. The Appellate Division determined that the word "solely" was ambiguous, and had to be construed in favor of coverage and against the Insurer who drafted the policy. The Court interpreted the word "solely" to refer only to an apportionment of fault as between the contactor and the City. The Court noted that such an interpretation "would exclude coverage only in those cases in which the putative additional insured is found to be partially at fault for the happening of the accident" (id., at 157).