Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Marine Ins. Co., 396 N.W.2d 229, 234 (Minn.1986)) (emphasis added). Thus: When read together, these [business risk] provisions exclude coverage when there has been no physical injury to tangible property other than the insured’s work. Standard Fire, 972 S.W.2d at 12 (emphasis added). In other words, there is coverage where there has been physical injury to tangible property that is not the insured’s work. As we have pointed out earlier in this opinion, we agree with the district court’s view that Love’s tangible real property is not the insured’s “work,” and that it was physically damaged by having the construction debris from the road-widening project dumped on it. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply. See Thommes v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 622 N.W.2d 155, 159-60 (Minn.App.2001) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 641 N.W.2d 877 (Minn.2002). Cf. Dewitt 
 Holding statements: (A) holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured (B) holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant (C) holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations (D) holding that j5 exclusion did not bar coverage for claim against insured by third party arising out of insureds damage to third partys property (E) 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
Output (English): holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant