In essence, the dissenters concluded that the application of the contractor's tools exclusion effectively would defeat all of the coverage granted in the first instance by the policy's temporary works provision, and that such exclusion therefore is unenforceable as a matter of public policy.
The question whether the policy covers the crane in the first instance turns on our interpretation of language germane to the policy's insuring agreement.
Namely, we conclude that there is no coverage for that loss under the policy because any coverage afforded by that contract in the first instance is defeated by the contractor's tools exclusion.
Here, it bears noting only that the question whether the policy contains coverage in the first instance for the crane turns in part on whether the crane is a "temporary work," as that phrase is incorporated in the insuring clause.
There, defendants maintained that the policy does not cover the subject loss in the first instance and that, even if such coverage exists, it is defeated by the contractor's tools exclusion.