of the vines. If it were otherwise, the CGL policy would again
be turned into a performance bond or product guarantee.
 None of Mori’s submissions has persuaded me that the
Peller claim is anything but what it seems on its face: a claim
against Mori for the delivery of defective products which is
excluded by the “Your Product” exclusion.
B. The care custody or control exclusion
 The second exclusion relevant to the motion is the care
custody or control exclusion. It applies primarily to Essex because
Mori delivered the vines to Essex for care and treatment.
 The care custody or control exclusion reads as follows:
This insurance does not apply to: . . .
h. “Property damage” to:
(4) “Personal property in your care, custody or control;
(5) That particular part of real property on which you or any
contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly
on your behalf are performing operations, if the “property
damage” arises out of those operations; or,
(6) That particular part of any property that must be restored,
repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly per-
formed on it[.]
 Although Peller makes no allegations against Essex, Mori
has commenced a third party notice against Essex in the Peller
action. In its third party notice, Mori claims that it delivered to
Essex for treatment, the vines it sold to Peller. Essex treated the
vines and returned them to Mori. Mori then states, in para. 10 of
its third party notice,
Mori Vines denies that the vines it sold to Andrew Peller were in any way
damaged or defective at the time of sale. However, if it is established that
the vines were defective at the time of sale, then the defective condition of
those plants was caused by Mori Essex’s negligent treatment of the vines.
 In light the allegation that any defect “was caused by
Mori Essex’s negligent treatment of the vines”, the care custody
or control exclusion applies on the face of the third party notice
and relieves Northbridge of any duty to defend Essex.
 Essex raises several arguments to avoid the care custody
or control exclusion.
 First, Essex argues that the exclusion could only apply if
the damage to the vines occurred when they were in its care custody or control. Essex points out that Peller does not allege when
the damage occurred.