Opinion ID: 768363
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Incorporation of the Siding into the Structure

Text: 33 Appellants and Shakertown cite no Louisiana law suggesting that incorporation of an insured's product into a larger structure makes the product no longer the insured's product. Moreover, we have not found any Louisiana authority suggesting that Civil Code Articles 465 and 493.1 regarding the attachment of products to immovables somehow work such a transformation. 34 The closest that any court interpreting Louisiana law has come to addressing Appellants' and Shakertown's argument is our decision in Gulf Mississippi where we held that where the work of the insured involves assembling, repairing, or installing parts owned by another entity, the completed whole is not regarded as the insured's product within the meaning of [a similar] exclusion clause. Gulf Miss., 697 F.2d at 673. Inasmuch as a subcontractor who installs components owned by the principal into a completed work is not the manufacturer of the whole, see id. at 672, Louisiana law does not recognize the argument that incorporation of a product into a larger entity transforms that product for work product exclusion purposes. Moreover, we note that the non-Louisiana cases relied upon by the Appellants and Shakertown involve substantially more drastic incorporation than that which the siding has undergone. See Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co. v. High Concrete Structures, 858 F.2d 128(3rd Cir. 1988) (converting raw steel into beveled washers); Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Bauer Dental Studio, Inc., 805 F.2d 324 (8th Cir. 1986) (converting manufacturer's gold crown into a patient's filling through dental workmanship); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. M&S Indus., Inc., 827 P.2d 321, 327 (Wash. App. Div. 2 1992) (converting plywood panels into an entirely different product designed to contain poured concrete in which the plywood was only one component of the finished product). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in rejecting this argument. 35