immediately purchased further vines to replace the remaining 60% of the
vines that it had purchased from Mori[.]
. . . . .
14. As a result of Mori’s breach of contract and duty of care, Andrew Peller
has suffered loss and damage, including, but not limited to, the replacement
cost of the vines, and a loss of production from the Vineyards.
 These paragraphs demonstrate that Peller’s fundamental
complaint is that the vines that Mori sold to Peller were damaged. That complaint would put the vines squarely within the
definition of “Your Product” which is defined as “goods or products, other than real property, manufactured, sold, handled, distributed or disposed of by” the insured.
 Mori raises several arguments to suggest that the Peller
claim is not caught by the “Your Product” exclusion.
 First, Mori argues that the exclusion does not apply
because Peller does not allege that the vines are the product of
any particular person or entity. While that is correct in the sense
that Peller does not state literally that the vines are the product
of Mori, the paragraphs quoted above make it clear that Peller
bought vines from Mori, the vines were defective and the vines
had to be replaced. These allegations bring the claim squarely
within the language of the “Your Product” exclusion.
 Second, Mori submits that the vines are real property
which removes them from the definition of “Your Product”,
because the definition specifically excludes real property.
 In support of its submission, Mori relies on Hoegy v. General Accident Assurance Co. of Canada (1977), 15 O.R. (2d) 108,
 O.J. No. 2155, 1977 CarswellOnt 776 (Co. Ct.), where the
court decided that it could not determine whether a flax crop
was real property or personal property and interpreted the
ambiguity in favour of the insured. There is, however, no such
ambiguity here. In Hoegy, the court dealt with conflicting case
law about the real or personal nature of crops. Cases that characterize crops as real property generally involve situations
where the crop is planted in the ground. That could not be the
case here. Peller purchased vines from Mori in Ontario for delivery to British Columbia. What Peller purchased was a plant that
was moved from Ontario to British Columbia. That is inherently
movable, personal property; not real property.
 Third, Mori submits that Peller claims damages for harm
to Peller’s property and not to the vines that Mori sold.
 To support this submission, Mori asserts that Peller seeks
damages for soil remediation. There is, however, no claim for soil
remediation articulated in Peller’s claim. If Peller did assert