The first concerns liability for property damage to “[t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.” J.A. 214-15 (exclusion l(k)(6)). The language of this exclusion begs the question, “On what ‘particular part’ of the property were the installations here performed? Was it simply the bottom surfaces of the homes, or should the installations be considered to have been performed on the homes in their entirety?” The former construction is at least reasonable, and the record contains no extrinsic evidence clarifying the parties’ intentions. Thus, the “particular part” exclusion does not necessarily bar coverage here. See Frankel v. J. Watson Co., 21 Mass.App.Ct. 43, 484 N.E.2d 104, 105-06 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The insurers next rely on exclusion 1(1),
holding that particular part exclusion precluded coverage only for foundation itself and not for rest of the property when insured was retained to move farmhouse and construct new foundation for it but negligently constructed foundation causing damage to the superstructure of the farmhouse holding that predecessor particular part exclusion barred coverage for damage to a switchboard upon which insured was adding circuit breakers 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 particular part exclusion barred coverage for damage to entire apartment insured was renovating even though insured was working only on one part of apartment at time of damage holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations