Plaintiff obtained a CGL policy from defendant which included an exclusion from coverage for injuries suffered by employees of a contractor.  The exclusion did not define “contractor.”  The decision holds that the term is ambiguous.  It could mean anyone contracted to work on a construction project, as the insurer contended.  Or it could mean anyone with whom the insured had entered into a contract, other than the insured’s own employees.  The latter, narrower definition was more in line with an insured’s reasonable expectations of coverage since it excluded coverage only for employees as to whom the insured could assure workers compensation coverage either by itself buying the coverage or by insisting that those with whom it contracted do so.  The insurer’s proposed definition by contrast would leave the insured without coverage as to employees that might not be covered by workers compensation insurance.