Colorado Additional Insured “ongoing operations only”

In United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Boulder Plaza Residential, LLC, Nos. 10-1056 (10^th Cir. Jan. 27, 2011),  M&R was the general contractor for a project and subcontracted with Summit for installation of wood floors.  Developer BPR sued M&R and Summit for breach of contract and negligence seeking damages for the repair of property damage to the floors after completion.  M&R tendered its defense under Summit’s CGL policy issued by United Fire contending it qualified as an additional insured.  United Fire’s additional insured endorsement provided that M&R was an additional insured but only with respect to liability arising out of Summit’s on-going operations for M&R.   United Fire denied a defense and filed a declaratory judgment action.  The federal district trial court entered summary judgment in favor of United Fire.  On appeal the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.  Applying Colorado law, the court held that “ongoing operations” unambiguously does  not include liability for damages because of property damage that occurs after the named insured completes its work.  Here, because the complaint only referred to property damage occurring after completion, no duty to defend arose.