[brief] Despite the conceded rarity of cancellations from CCIP policies, and the fact that there was no procedure in place for notifying subcontractors of their termination of coverage, [...] improperly left it to [...], [...], or perhaps [...] to notify [...] of its putative cancellation of coverage.  Even though the court below acknowledged that [...] did not send notice of any purported cancellation of coverage to [...], it concluded that [...] discharged its obligation through the confusing and perplexing series of emails between and among [...], [...], [...] and [...], under the "Sole Agent For The Insured" endorsement in the [...] policy.  (SSR 25, Dta1355.)  As a matter of law, such "notice" is ineffective, and the "Sole Agent" endorsement does not even cover this situation.  First, even if [...] could delegate its obligation to provide [...] notice of coverage termination, that notice, as set forth above, as a matter of law, was neither “clear” nor “specific. ”  [...]’s letter and [...]’s testimony confirm this.  Moreover, to the extent the prior emails could be argued to serve as the functional equivalent of [...]’s “cancellation notice,” [...]’s subsequent letter confirming [...]’s insured status is the equivalent of a “reinstatement notice. ”  Nor does the “Sole Agent for The Insured” endorsement of the [...] policy have the effect stated by the Court – in fact, it is inapplicable.  That endorsement, consistent with the contract documents, only purported to authorize [...] to cancel the [...] policy as a whole and to request changes to [...]’s and other insureds’ coverage.  It plainly does not purport to excuse [...] from its non-delegable obligation to give its insureds notice of the changes that [...] requested, especially changes as drastic as termination of [...]’s coverage – nor could it.  Insigna, Barbara Corp., supra.  In fact, [...] irrefutably and admittedly took no action to effectuate any changes to any provision of the liability insurance policy that may have been requested by [...].  As “clear and unambiguous on its face” as that endorsement might be (SSR 27, Dta1357), it simply is irrelevant to the issues in this case, which relate to [...] conveying proper notice of coverage changes, not to [...]’s right to request that [...] make such changes to exclude subcontractors from coverage, which is what the endorsement purports to permit.  Furthermore, the converse of [...] being “the sole agent for the insured” is not true.  [...] expressly excluded the ability to act as [...]’s agent as it related to coverage in the contract documents.  [...]’s “Sole Agent Of The Insured” endorsement argument, adopted by the court below, is a legal and factual non-sequitur.  [...]’s conceded failure to send coverage termination notice to [...] should have been dispositive of the issue.  Instead, the opinion below cited only to [...]’s skewed and incomplete series of emails regarding the initial Ritz Wall work, which abruptly end on September 23, 2015, to conclude that [...] “was notified it had been unenrolled from the CCIP, acknowledged it was unenrolled, and did not object. ” (SSR 28, Dta1358.)  Inexplicably, [...]’s September 25, 2015 confirmation of coverage to [...] is not even mentioned.  Nor are [...]’s several depositions confirming [...]’s belief that the pre-September 25, 2015 emails only related to [...]’s initial Ritz wall work, and not to its subsequent work on the site, as confirmed by [...]’s letter.  D.