In Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 602, the insured supplied defective doors for a housing project. The contractor who installed the doors obtained a $ 100,000 judgment against the insured and then proceeded against the insured's insurance company for the amount of the judgment. Under the insurance policy, damage to the insured's goods was excluded from coverage, but because the policy insured against damage to other property, the expenses incurred in repairing the houses were covered. After the houses were completed, serious defects appeared in the doors: some doors would not open, others would not close, and others fell out. ( Id. at pp. 604, 606.) As a result, substantial portions of the houses were unusable. ( Id. at p. 606.) The policy excluded coverage for " 'any injury to or destruction of ... any goods or products manufactured, sold, handled or distributed by the Insured or work completed by the Insured out of which the accident arises.' " ( Id. at p. 604, fn. 2.) The court held that the insurance company was "liable for the expense of installing the replacement doors in addition to the cost of removing those that were defective." (Id. at p. 607.) It stated the general rule that "the damages should be measured by the diminution in the value of the building or the cost of removing the defective product and restoring the building to its former condition, whichever is less." (Id. at pp. 604-605.) The California Supreme Court held that "while the cost of the doors themselves is within the exclusion of the policy, the insurer is liable for the expense of installing the replacement doors in addition to the cost of removing those that were defective." ( Id. at p. 607.) The court rejected the insurer's contention the policy only covered removal of the defective doors because "the 'restoration' of the houses to a doorless condition would, if anything, exacerbate the injury." (Ibid.)