Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company (MFM) filed a declaratory judgment action in the District Court, County of Cass, seeking a declaration that insurance policies it issued to Superior Manufacturing, LLC and Superior, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as Superior) do not provide coverage for Superior’s liability to James & David Cooper Farms, Inc., Philip Cooper, and Michael D. Cooper (collectively referred to herein as Cooper Farms). Cooper Farms intervened in the case. MFM moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted summary judgment to MFM, in part, and against Superior and Cooper Farms. Cooper Farms identifies six issues with the grant of summary judgment in this appeal:
(1) Whether the District Court erred by holding that the Missouri Judgment is not covered under MFM’s policies, with the exception of $296,000;
(2) Whether the District Court erred by holding that Superior and Cooper Farms have not met their burden of proof that there was an “occurrence” covered by MFM’s policies;
(3) Whether the District Court erred by holding that Superior and Cooper Farms have not met their burden of proof that there was “property damage” covered by MFM’s policies;
(4) Whether the District Court erred by holding that even if Superior and Cooper Farms were able to meet their burden of proving “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” coverage is excluded by the “business risk” exclusions, specifically the Damage to Your Product exclusion and the Damage to Your Work exclusion;
(5) Whether there is coverage under the policies for products-completed operations; and
(6) Whether there is coverage under the policies pursuant to the concurrent cause doctrine if part of Superior’s liability is not covered.

I. Whether the District Court properly concluded that the Missouri Judgment is not covered under the Businessowner’s Policy nor the Commercial Umbrella Policy issued to Superior, with the exception of $296,000.00 for damage to other property.
II. Whether the District Court properly concluded that Cooper Farms and Superior have not met their burden of proof that the performance of defective or faulty work by Superior is an “occurrence” covered by the Midwest Family policies.
III. Whether the District Court properly concluded that Cooper Farms and Superior have not met their burden of proof that the physical injury to Superior’s grain bin structures and any loss of use is “property damage” covered by the Midwest Family policies.
IV. Whether the District Court properly concluded that even if Superior and Cooper Farms were able to meet their burden of proving “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”, coverage is excluded by the “business risk” exclusions, specifically the Damage to Your Product exclusion and the Damage to Your Work exclusion.
V. Whether the District Court properly concluded that there is not separate coverage under the Midwest Family policies for “products-completed operations”.