899, 902 (Mo. banc 2010). It is the insured’s burden to establish coverage under the policy and the insurer’s burden to show that an exclusion to coverage applies. Taylor v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., 457 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Mo. banc 2015). Missouri courts strictly construe exclusionary clauses against the insurer. Id. Exclusion j(6) of the policy excludes coverage 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.” Put another way, exclusion j(6) excludes coverage for property damage to a particular part of any property on which EPS performed work if EPS’s work was incorrectly performed on that particular part. See Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schauf, 967 S.W.2d 74, 81 (Mo. banc 1998) (<HOLDING>). The district court concluded that at the time
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 holding that j5 exclusion did not bar coverage for damage to subcontractors work because damage did not arise from insureds performing operations on subcontractors work holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did 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 j5 exclusion did not bar coverage for claim against insured by third party arising out of insureds damage to third partys property