In Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Syufy Enterprises (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 321, the defendant contracted with an electrical company to upgrade the lighting and temperature controls at a property it owned. The electrical company requested its commercial general liability insurer to provide additional insured coverage to the defendant. The policy provided that the defendant was an insured under the policy, "'but only with respect to liability arising out of "your work" for that insured by or for you.'" (Ibid.) The policy specified that "'you'" and "'your'" referred to the electrical company and "'your work'" was "operations performed by you or on your behalf." (Ibid.) An employee for defendant was leaving the defendant's premises to take his wife to the airport and he was hurt as he was climbing down the hatch in the defendant's building. (Ibid.) The insurer believed that the defective hatch resulted from the defendant's independent negligence and refused to provide coverage. ( Id. at p. 325.) The question before the Syufy court was whether "'liability arising out of "your work"'" in the additional insured endorsement restricted liability to that arising directly from the electrical company's work product. ( Syufy, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 326.) The court explained that the restricted definition conflicted with the rule that when an "ambiguity remains unresolved after considering the policy's language and context, and the parties' objectively reasonable expectations, then the ambiguity is resolved against the insurer and in favor of coverage." ( Id. at p. 327.) The court pointed out that courts broadly interpret the terms "'arising out of'" and therefore the injury clearly "'arose out of' the work" the employee was performing on the defendant's building. ( Id. at p. 328.) The policy language did not allocate coverage according to fault and therefore this injury was covered. ( Id. at pp. 328-329.) The court noted that the insurance company could have "issued additional insured endorsements that specifically limit coverage to situations in which the additional insured is faced with vicarious liability for negligent conduct by the named insured." ( Id. at p. 330.) In Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Syufy Enterprises, the insurance company argued there was no coverage because: (1) the event causing the injury, i.e., the falling hatch, occurred after the employee stopped working and was leaving the jobsite; (2) the named insured performed no work on the roof hatch. The First District held the "minimal causal connection or incidental relationship" was established because the injured employee of the named insured was performing work on a roof and had to pass through the defective hatch, the only access to the roof, to get to and from the work. (Syufy, supra, 69 Cal. App. 4th at p. 328)