Which of the following is *not* considered impaired property?

The concept of impaired property relates to property that cannot be used for its intended purpose due to defects, failures, or other issues directly connected with the property itself or the insured's actions.

The insured's product is not considered impaired property because, while it may have defects or issues, it does not fall under the typical definition of impaired property as it does not refer to an external effect on another property. In contrast, impaired property typically includes conditions where another party's property becomes less valuable or unusable because of defects in a product or service that has been provided by the insured.

In this context, the other options describe scenarios in which property may be deemed impaired: property incorporating a known defective product can lead to claims against the insured; property becoming unusable due to the insured's failure to meet contractual obligations directly affects the usability and value of the property affected. Thus, the distinction lies in the nature of what constitutes impaired property and how it relates specifically to contractual and product failures, which are not characteristics of the insured's product itself.