of the project: the transfer of the fill material back into the creek. Indeed, Plaintiff emphasizes that the “costs incurred to create and implement the restoration project were wholly to put the spoil back where it belonged.” (Dkt. 17 at 17). Plaintiff argues that whatever harm occurred amounted to only a fraction of the area on which it worked and that the creek was of low functional value before the dredging. The Court does not accept this argument, because fill was removed along the entire 3.4 mile stretch of Howard Creek upon which Plaintiff worked. Even if this were considered only partial damage, an item need not be completely destroyed in order to render it damaged. See e.g., Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Cutrale Citrus Juices USA, Inc., 2002 WL 1433728 (M.D.Fla. Feb.11, 2002) (<HOLDING>). The CGL only requires physical injury. It is
holding that although allegations were not specific as to what property was damaged they could be fairly read to include property covered by the insurance policy holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling holding that an implied warranty of merchantability does not create a labeling requirement different from or in addition to those mandated by fifra because the implied warranty of merchantability arises from the sale itself not from a state labeling regulation citation omitted holding that adul terated juice product is damaged notwithstanding that it could be sold under different labeling