The court decided that the key phrase, "arising out of the named insured's ongoing operations", addresses only the type of activity from which the additional insured's liability must arise in order to be covered, not when the injury or damage must occur. In other words, this language does not state that injury must occur, or liability must arise, during the named insured's ongoing operations, but rather requires only that the liability arise out of the ongoing operations, which may require only a minimal causal connection between the liability and the ongoing operations.

 The ruling of the trial court was reversed and remanded.

 Editor's Note: This decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adds to a small but growing list of decisions that the "ongoing operations" limiting language does not result in actually limiting the additional insured coverage to acts occurring during the ongoing operations. In other words, attempts by insurers to prevent additional insured coverage for products/completed operations exposures are being eroded.

 The court found that the insurer's argument that the damages suffered by the customer arose after the completion of the project was overshadowed by the finding that the conduct that gave rise to the damage occurred as a result of Golden West's operations during the construction work. The court pointed out that the insurer could have worded the additional insured endorsement with language stating that the additional insured status ends when the named insured's operations for that insured are completed. In this instance, that was not done, so the court, finding ambiguous interpretations in the additional insured endorsement meant a ruling against the insurer.