New Jersey Subscriber

In considering the information provided, we believe the damage would be covered under the CGL policy. Most courts hold that property damage occurs at the time when it manifests itself or when the claimant notices the property damage. Exclusion J is for ongoing operations, not completed operations exposures. In the case above, the alfalfa growth was stunted, and no specific timeline was mentioned, but the claimant would not have been able to notice the stunted growth until long after the employee was finished spraying the crops. Exclusion J(4) is not applicable because alfalfa growing in a field should be considered real property. If, somehow, the alfalfa does not qualify as real property, the crops were not in the care, custody, or control of the insured at the time of the damage, since the spraying had long since been completed. Exclusions J(5) and J(6) are not applicable because property damage occurred after the operations were completed and these exclusions are both intended for ongoing operations. Because exclusion L is the only exclusion that applies to completed operations, it is the only exclusion that would possibly be applicable under the CGL form. That exclusion would not apply either, though, because the damage was to the property of a customer, not to the work of the insured. Although exclusion L is confusing and poorly worded, the takeaway is that a customer's property should be covered. In the case of the stunted alfalfa plants, the insured's work caused damage to their customer's property, and that damage is what the CGL form is meant to cover. From the above analysis it does not seem like any exclusion applies that would preclude coverage for the alfalfa plants stunted growth.