Policy: Coverage Provisions, Exclusions, and Other Litigation Issues 134 (Peter J ed cleaning the lacquer from his equipment to be part of the job; consequently, he included the time for cleaning equipment in his bid. Shauf stated that he always cleans his equipment immediately upon stopping painting for the day so that the paint or lacquer does not dry and clog the lines of his sprayer. Flushing paint or lacquer from the lines of his sprayer is an essential part of the painting job because, without it, the equipment can no longer be used to paint the house. Because Schauf was performing a part of his contract to paint the Sodaros’ house, he was performing operations on real property. See Advance Elec., Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 818 F.2d 378, 379 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Goldsberry, 367 So.2d at 134-35 (applying
holding that insured was performing operations on engine while engine was cooling overnight because coolingstage was an essential part of the operation 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 reinsurer could be directly liable to an insured where the reinsurance agent was the ultimate consistent reimburser of losses of the insured and this status was conveyed to the insured holding that it was permissible for the jury to find that the defendants understood that the murder  was not an end in itself but rather was part of the  organizations larger drug distribution operation 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