The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina recently ruled on the scope of additional insured coverage for a general contractor (“GC”).  See Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No.  15-cv-00110 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2016).   After water damage to a building, the GC sought coverage from Lexington as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s (“SC”) insurance policy.  The additional insured provision of the Lexington policy issued to the SC provided coverage where required by written contract and to include an organization but only with respect to liability arising out of the SC’s ongoing operations performed for that organization.  The subcontract between the GC and the SC required the SC to provide additional insured coverage to the GC for ongoing and completed operations and made specific reference to the particular form additional insured endorsement contained in the SC’s policy.  On cross motions for summary judgment, the court reasoned that the language of the additional insured endorsement required a causal nexus such that the GC’s liability was a natural and reasonable consequence of the SC’s operations.  The court held the GC was an additional insured because the court found a sufficient causal nexus between the SC’s work and the resulting water damage for which the GC was liable.  The court also found that the GC as an additional insured was required to comply with the notice obligations under the SC’s policy.