Teacher:In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: damage to other persons and their property, but not insuring the risk of the insured causing damage to the insured's own work. Weedo, 405 A2d at 791-92. The exclusion at issue in this ease, an exclusion for property damage to "[tjhat particular part of real property on which [the insured] is performing operations, if the 'property damage' arises out of those operations," is a business risk exclusion. Glens Falls Ins. v. Donmac Golf Shaping, 203 Ga.App. 508, 417 S.E.2d 197, 200 (1992). The instant exclusion denies coverage for more than just damage to the insured's work, however, by excluding from coverage damage to the particular part of property on which the insured is performing operations. See Vinsant Elec. Contractors v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 530 S.W.2d 76, 77 (Tenn.1975) (<HOLDING>). An explanation of why this damage to the
Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) 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 (C) holding that predecessor particular part exclusion barred coverage for damage insured caused to well as it was lowering gun to depth at which insured was to use gun to perforate well (D) 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 (E) holding that predecessor particular part exclusion barred coverage for damage to a switchboard upon which insured was adding circuit breakers
Student:
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