[brief] **A.  Background**  The gist of this deceptively simple insurance coverage litigation is clouded by [...]’s herculean efforts at obfuscation, which resulted in a loss of sight of the proverbial forest for the trees.  To avoid a similar entanglement in the density of the facts, virtually all of which are immaterial to the proper disposition of the matter, the following is a concise summary of the case.  Non-party [...] served as the general contractor for the construction of the [...] in Philadelphia.  [...] sponsored the CCIP, which [...] and [...] insured through CGL, excess liability and workers compensation policies.  [...] contractually required subcontractors of every tier to enroll in the CCIP.  Once those subcontractors were enrolled in the CCIP, they became “Named Insured[s]” under the CGL and excess policies and were issued separate workers compensation policies by [...].  (Dta430,814, 500,590,981.)  [...] retained [...] to perform site work on the project, which, in turn, subcontracted with [...] to perform concrete cutting work.  [...]’s initial work encompassed the removal of a wall on the property’s boundary with the [...] in August of 2015 ("the Ritz wall work"), but [...] recalled [...] to perform other work throughout the course of the project.  (Dta1285-1296.)  After [...] enrolled [...] in the CCIP, [...] was issued a Certificate of Insurance confirming its Named Insured status under the [...] CGL and excess policies as well as a separate [...] workers compensation policy, effective August 3, 2015.  (Dta951.)  Shortly after its enrollment, a [...] employee determined that [...]’s initial Ritz wall work should be excluded from the CCIP because it involved demolition work, even though the [...] policies and the manual promulgated to govern the CCIP did not exclude demolition.  (Dta498,590.)  This led to a series of emails, the last of which is dated September 23, 2015, purporting to establish that [...]’s work, at least insofar as the incipient Ritz wall work was concerned, was excluded from the CCIP.  (Dta1331.)  [...] admitted that it did not send any notice to [...] of any termination of its coverage, or otherwise communicate with it.  [...]’s representatives confirmed that they could not locate any notice of cancellation of the CGL or excess policies, or similar documents.  [...] did, however, prepare a notice of cancellation of [...]’s separate workers compensation policy, which it sent to the [...], but not to [...].  (Dta 850,1043,1212,1407.)  On September 25, 2015, [...] received notice from [...], the upper-tier subcontractor charged with ensuring [...]’s enrollment in the CCIP, advising [...] that it was “CCIP-Approved. ”  (Dta1285.)  Three months later, on December 15, 2015, the underlying accident occurred while [...] was performing additional work for [...].  [...]’s representative testified that [...] presumed it was covered under the CCIP policies for the underlying action filed against it by the injured worker based on [...]’s letter advising it that it was enrolled in the CCIP following the initial Ritz wall work.  (Dta1290.)  Upon discovering the fact that [...] covered [...] under the CCIP, [...], through its [...]-retained defense counsel, tendered the matter to [...], which belatedly denied the coverage request, leading to this lawsuit.  (Dta860.)  The Law Division did not consider the import of the post-September 23 communications and [...]’s concomitant understanding of coverage in rendering its determination.  B.  The Accident