RDI’s work in this case. Remodeling Dimensions, 806 N.W.2d at 92. The court reasoned that the exclusion applied only to goods and products, and does not exclude coverage for RDI’s work performed in this case. Id. The court’s analysis is persuasive and supported by the record. Exclusion “m” excludes coverage for property damage to “your work” arising out of the work or any part of it. The policy defines “your work” to mean “[w]ork or operations performed by you or on your behalf.” RDI concedes that exclusion “m” applies “to the actual work” it performed on the house, but contends that exclusion “m” does not apply to damage caused by RDI’s work to the original walls and structure of the home. The court of appeals concluded that the negligent ., 165 Wash.2d 255, 199 P.3d 376, 385 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a negligent-construction claim for
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 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 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 unambiguous terms of the your work exclusion do not eliminate coverage for harm done to a subcontractors work holding that your work exclusion does not bar coverage of repairs made necessary when an insured contractor damaged the subsurfaces beneath the siding it installed