A general contractor tendered its defense and indemnity to a subcontractor's insurer claiming it was an additional insured on its policy. The tender was rejected on the basis that the incident in question, a fire that destroyed a house, did not arise out of the "ongoing operations" of the subcontractor's work, as required by the policy, since the subcontractor had completed its work several months before. The general contractor and its insurer filed suit claiming that the work was "ongoing" since it was not properly completed. The trial court, addressing an issue of first impression, awarded John's client summary judgment and interpreted "ongoing operations" in the manner he proposed. There are no published Illinois decisions that address this issue.