The 1986 revisions to the CGL policy significantly limit the effect of the work/product exclusions in construction defect cases. If the completed structure no longer qualifies as the insured contractor’s “product”, the exclusions would likely apply only to the extent that the contractor’s own work was damaged as a result of its own faulty workmanship. Upon reviewing the history of the subcontractor exception in Kvaemer Metals, the Pennsylvania Superior Court remanded the case to the trial court for application of the exception. Id. at 658. The court noted that the subcontractor exception “alters the definition of ‘your work’ ... so as to exclude work performed by a subcontractor.” Id. at 655. See also Spears v. Smith, 117 Ohio App.3d 262, 690 N.E.2d 557, 560 (Ohio Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the parties stipulated
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 your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work holding that your work exclusion does not bar coverage of repairs made necessary when an insured contractor damaged the subsurfaces beneath the siding it installed holding similar exclusion excluding coverage for any loss was clear and unambiguous and excluded coverage for um claims even though such claims were not expressly mentioned in the exclusion holding that the unambiguous terms of the your work exclusion do not eliminate coverage for harm done to a subcontractors work