Lawson & Sons, Inc. v. Techinsure, Inc. Robert Lawson of Lawson & Sons, Inc. was the owner and developer of a residential building. On January 19, 2005, cracks began to appear on parts of the tile flooring. On February 1, 2005, Lawson filed a claim with Techinsure, Inc., the insurance company he used for all of his projects, for the cost of replacing the flooring in all units in the building. The claim was denied, and the reasons Techinsure cited were defective design and construction of the floor system. Lawson filed a lawsuit and the court found that Lawson & Sons' redesign of the floor system, which included replacement of the flooring with more crack-resistant tile flooring, thus further supporting the primary causes of the cracking, concluding that the exclusion for the "cost of making good" any defective design and workmanship applied. The trial court also concluded that the "ensuing loss" exception to those exclusions did not apply. The court granted summary judgment against Lawson & Sons. The LLC's subsequent appeal was rejected. Would you affirm or reject the judgment of the court? Why?