In Worth Constr. Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 10 NY3d 411 [2008] the Court of Appeals held that liability did not arise out of a subcontractor's operations, as required for a general contractor to have coverage under an additional insured endorsement naming the contractor as an additional insured (Worth, 10 NY3d at 416). In that case, Pacific Steel, Inc. (Pacific) was a subcontractor hired to make and install a staircase on an apartment complex construction project (id. at 413). Pacific obtained a commercial general liability policy naming Worth Construction Co., Inc. (Worth), the general contractor as an additional insured "but only with respect to liability arising out of your Pacific's operations" (id. at 414). After the stairs had been installed but before the walls had been raised, an ironworker slipped on fireproofing that had been applied to the stairs (id.). In the underlying action, in response to Pacific's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, Worth conceded that its negligence claims against Pacific were without merit (id. at 414-415). The Court of Appeals, therefore, held that there was no connection between the worker's accident and the risk for which coverage was intended; "once Worth admitted that its claims of negligence against Pacific were without factual merit, it conceded that the staircase was merely the situs of the accident" (id. at 416).