Damage” Gerling also argues that the circuit court erred in finding that Wheelwright showed that it had sustained “property damage” under the terms of its policies. The circuit court held that Wheelwright had shown by undisputed evidence that its tractors, although physically undamaged, were rendered less useful as a result of the failure of Dorsey’s trailers and that "Wheelwright had lost profits as a result. The circuit court stated: “Both Alabama and Georgia courts have found coverage for financial losses stemming from the loss of use of tangible property that is related to an insured’s product or work, similar to the loss of use of Wheelwright’s tractors stemming from the defective trailers. See Fitness Equipment Co. v. Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 493 So.2d 1337, 1343 (Ala.1985)(<HOLDING>); United States Fidelity & Guaranty [Co.] v.
holding that lost profits were covered where the insureds product a motor used in a treadmill was defective and caused lost profits on the sale of the treadmills holding that a business owners testimony was insufficient to establish lost profits where he was not able to specify which contracts they lost how many they lost how much profit they would have had from the contracts or who would have awarded them contracts and explaining that the plaintiffs could have supported their lost profits with testimony that they had lost out on specific contracts but failed to do so holding that the plaintiffs attempted to recover lost profits which under the facts of the case were consequential damages holding past profits coupled with other facts and circumstances may establish lost profits holding that an unestablished business may recover lost prospective profits