In Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schauf, 967 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. 1988), the insured was the interior and exterior painting subcontractor on a residential project. While cleaning lacquer used on kitchen cabinets from spray equipment using thinner, the insured started a fire that damaged most of the project. The contractor sought recovery from the insured. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action based on the j.(5) exclusion. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. On appeal the Supreme Court of Missouri, on an issue of first impression in that jurisdiction, held:
(1) because cleaning equipment is part of the job, the insured was performing operations on real property at the time he started the fire;
(2) “that particular part” language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, is thus ambiguous, and the more narrow interpretation must be applied;
(3) the exclusion applies to the property on which the insured is performing operations, not the area in which the insured is performing operations; and
(4) because the insured was cleaning from his spray equipment lacquer applied to the kitchen cabinets, the exclusion applies only to damage to the kitchen cabinets.