but functioning [product] that might fail in the future [does] not constitute ‘property damage.’ ” F & H Const, v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 118 Cal.App.4th 364, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 896, 905 (2004). We conclude that coverage is not triggered by this first definition of ‘Property Damage’ because it is undisputed that Silgan’s defective lids did not physically harm the fruit inside the cups. There was no alteration in the appearance, shape, or color of the fruit and the fruit remained edible. Silgan’s defective lids, moreover, were not so inherently dangerous that they can be considered to have inflicted a physical injury on the fruit by the mere fact of incorporation. Cf. Armstrong World Indus. Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 45 Cal.App.4th 1, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 690, 733-34 (1996) (<HOLDING>). 2. “Loss of use of tangible property that is
holding that the installation of asbestoscontaining materials caused immediate physical injury to the building because asbestos is ultrahazardous holding that present physical injury caused by exposure to asbestos is essential element of claims for mental anguish and medical monitoring costs holding that the nexus between an asbestos product and plaintiff may be established by direct and circumstantial evidence and that testimony by someone with knowledge relating to the plaintiffs workplace exposure to an asbestoscontaining product is admissible holding that actual injury to property  the presence of the asbestos hazard  occurs upon installation and exists regardless of whether it yet has been discovered by the building owners holding that the physical occupation caused by the mandatory installation of cable television equipment was a compensable taking