the steel rods. According to the contract between SST and LeBlanc & Royle, the latter was to “Provide, Fabricate, Galvánize & Deliver to the site all materials per” certain specifications. The contract then outlines certain design and manufacturing specifications. Therefore, with respect to the tower, the exception to the exclusion does apply. Id. at 1239-1240 (citations omitted). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the manufacturer of prefabricated steel rods was a subcontractor for purposes of the exception to the “yóur work” exclusion. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Structural Sys. Tech., Inc., 964 F.2d 759, 763 (8th Cir.1992). See also Wanzek Constr., Inc. v. Employers Ins., 679 N.W.2d 322, 329 (Minn.2004) (<HOLDING>). Upon reviewing the cases cited by the
holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work holding that for purposes of statutory construction expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other holding that subcontract requirement that work    be performed in accordance with specifications in prime contract meant that prime contract governed the manner of the performance of the work not    the basis for computing the amount to be paid the subcontractor holding that a supplier of coping stones for a new swimming pool was a subcontractor for purposes of the your work exclusion since the supplier custom manufactured the coping stones to the architects specifications and provided onsite supervision in connection with the installation holding that the unambiguous terms of the your work exclusion do not eliminate coverage for harm done to a subcontractors work