reserved its right to disclaim coverage”). Únited was within its rights to raise the Specifically Covered Operations Endorsement upon receipt of information that it would apply. Accordingly, United did not waive its right to raise the Specifically Covered Operations Endorsement. VI. Conclusion Upon the facts and conclusions set forth above, the partial summary judgment motion of Plaintiffs is denied, and the summary judgment motion of United is granted. It is so ordered. 1 . Even if Plaintiffs made such an argument, it would be unavailing, as a recent case in this Court reiterated. See Netherlands Ins. Co. v. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 14CIV3568NSRJCM, 2015 WL 9295745, at *4, 6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2015), reconsid. denied, No. 14CIV3568NSRJCM, 2016 WL 297736 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016) (<HOLDING>). "Numerous cases in state and federal courts
holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party holding that the policy language expected or intended by an insured person is unambiguous and requires a subjective intent on behalf of the insured holding that an ownedproperty exclusion did not apply with respect to property that the insured bought only after the policy periods for which the insured sought coverage holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured