l. “Property damage” to “your product” arising out of it or any part of it

        m. “Property damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products completed operations hazard”.

 Our insured is a carpet installer. He had just completed a job of installing a carpet.  He was replacing the furniture when a leg of a sofa caught a “row” and tore the carpet.        

 Would the damage to the carpet be excluded? My question arises because he had completed the job of laying the carpet, and tore it after he completed his “work”.

Ohio Subscriber

First, as for applicability of exclusion m., this could turn on the more specific facts of the incident. For instance, did the carpet installer move the furniture out of the way to clean the carpet in the first place?  If so, it stands to reason that to also replace the furniture would also be a part of the “work” of installing the carpet. So, if he was replacing the furniture when he tore the carpet, his work had not yet been completed when the damage occurred.  Therefore, exclusion m. would not apply because it would not be part of the “products completed operations hazard” as defined in the policy. 

Or, was there any sort of agreement (written or oral) between the installer and the customer regarding the moving of furniture? The terms of such an agreement could also dictate whether replacing the furniture was actually part of the installer's “work”.  Here again, if moving the furniture was part of the work, then the work was not completed when the damage occurred and the damage would not be included in the “products completed operations hazard”.     

However, if the furniture was moved out of the way by the customer prior to the installation, then perhaps replacing the furniture really should not be considered a part of the installer's “work”. Maybe he just put the furniture back as a nice gesture to the client. In this case, the work of laying the carpet could be considered to have been completed prior to the replacing of the furniture and the resulting damage. Exclusion m. could then apply to eliminate coverage for the torn carpet.   

That being said, based solely on the facts provided the work was not completed when the damage occurred. Thus, exclusion m. would not apply because the work would not be part of the “products completed operations hazard”. 

As for exclusion l., this would not apply either because once the carpet was nailed down it transitioned from personal to real property. Damage to “your product” is required for exclusion l. to apply, and under the definition of “your product” the goods or products must be “other than real property”.   

Finally, although neither of the exclusions you referenced applies, exclusion k.(5) and k.(6) may. All of the necessary criteria are met by the situation you describe (e.g., real property or “any” property, “property damage”, and “your work”). Also, because the work was not completed when the damage occurred, k.'s language excepting exclusion k.(6) for property damage included in the “products completed operations hazard” would not serve to give back coverage eliminated by the exclusion.

Based on this analysis, the tearing of the carpet would not be covered by the policy you reference.