good facts are in order to frame the legal issue before this court the insurance party parking pretty parking offers parking spaces and valet services for the public party parking purchased a commercial general liability policy from hudson specialty responded for an additional premium hudson specialty amended indorsed their policy to provide a separate coverage and that was for errors in emissions for parking operations tragically a patron was injured she sued specialty as the primary insure provided a defense without reservation in order to attempt  now thank you so scottsdale demanded it made a man out to hudson that it contribute its two million aggregate liability limits towards a settlement scott stales demand was based upon the loss falling in within two separate ensuring agreements the first ensuring agreement in the hudson policy is the hudson special obligation jim the five party parking for bodily injury caused by quote an occurrence close quote and the term occurrence is defined in the policy as an accident in relevant part because party park had paid a separate premium for arizona missions coverage scottsdale also argued and maintains that the loss also fell within that ensuring agreement that ensuring agreement says that hudson specialty will indemnify priority parking for damages because of any negligent act error or omission during the policy period arising out of parking operations it's in disagreed they contributed a million scots will pay the rest to settle the matter among some other section one coverage a for bodily injury caused by an occurrence hurts and then said that its policy contains what it argues is a conspicuous limitation it's section three limits of insurance subsection five that section provides that the most of the one occurrence limits is the most we had since specialty will pay for the sum of damages under coverage hey it is our understanding that in relevant part the district court agreed with that argument however that argument is in error because section five has a qualification to it in full it provides that each occurrence limit is the most touching specialty will pay for the sum of damages under coverage a and then it goes on to state because of bodily injury arising out of any one quote occurrence close quote the defined term occurrence the district court we  the court's attention that the term occurrence is the find it means an accident so subsection five limited its limiting qualifications to coverage for body injury caused by and occurrence however the separate ensuring agreement did not use the word current's it was not predicated on the word occurrence nowhere in the form can you find the word occurrence therefore we maintained that the aggregate limit did apply because hudson specialities declarations page differentiates its liability limits in sections there is a one million liability limit for general liability for bodily injury by an occurrence and then there is a separate section with a liability limit for errors and emissions coverage per claim to school if i could ask you question one is am i correct that we have to interpret the insurance policy as a whole it is the policy language plus the indorsement language under california law the policy must be interpreted as a whole correct that would include the and then the related question is if there's a conflict between the policy language in the declaration page what controls there for first i don't believe there is a conflict because the insuring of the decoration page does say that there is a separate liability omission i think you need to read the decorations page and the other provisions jointly to try to interpret and understand what the intent is but subsection five doesn't address the situation it just doesn't apply it applies for an injury that comes within the bodily injury caused by an occurrence ensuring provision but it is silent with regards to the separate ensuring provision for a act error or omission that is why it is scott feels position and has ben that subsection two is the appropriate section that the district court should have applied subsection two says is that the errors and omission portion of the coverage is not expressly made to be a claims made coverage and that makes all the difference here can you explain that i can and i do believe the court below adopted this argument and really i think it's a conflation between occurrence coverage as a general proposition and the defined term occurrence as used in the hudson specialty policy so there is a concept of trigger of coverage under california law that the supreme court in montrose has referred to and policies are generally characterized between what are claims made policies and occurrence policies a claims made policy requires that the claim be made during the policies period the period that it is in effect contrary to that are what we generally call occurrence policies it is not the claim being made that triggers the insurers obligation is rather a subset of other conditions it could be the injury bodily injury or property damage that has to occur during the a policy period it could be the accident that has to occur during the policy period it could be both so as i understand it this policy has components of both right there is a component for employers liability coverage that is a claims made ensuring agreement as the industry would understand it correctly understood at your opponent and i think you just this record make the distinction that where the policy purports to make a claims made basis for coverage it does so expressly it didn't do so in the air as an omission portion of the policy and therefore that's why you're not entitled to the additional one million and coverage what's your response to that thank you this is the response i am not saying scottsdale is not saying that the arizona missions coverage is claims made it's not it does not require the falling of a claim during hudson specialities policy period but the supreme court has said is courts cannot rely on this trigger of coverage concept to decide limits or other provisions the courts actually have to examine the words used themselves and the words used in the arizona missions ensuring agreement is any negligent act error or omission so the only way that you can say a per occurrence limit applies one limit applies is to equate a defined occurence accident with negligent act error or omission under california law those are not equal propositions and i think it is relevant that when deposed hudson specialities person most qualified james brogan testified that on the declarations page per occurrence refers to the defined term occurrence and i referred the questioning attorney to page fourteen of the general policy pages and he said that errors and omissions coverage was a distinct and separate risk from the general liability coverage so he himself made the distinction between the two could interject a practical question and this may be totally off base on the law so you can tell me if it is but as i recall the overall premium on the policy some of the language says it's bringing the coverage under cover j which would sort of fit with the the one million limit but what i'm trying to understand is how how could a four hundred dollar coverage indorsement justify a doubling of the limit of viability your honor you raise an excellent question and i have given it a lot of thought and i pose the question in response and i will provide an answer the question sort of assumes its conclusion because i've looked at the record on appeal and the evidence that it is my house and specialty and i want to ask what substantiates their argument that four hundred fifty dollars premium wasn't sufficient under their ratings to obtain another million in insurance and what i would bring to the court's attention and i believe justice was mentioned that the policy includes also employers liability coverage the premium and it's a limit of one million dollars you're on the premium that they paid for that extra coverage was also four hundred fifty dollars the policy also includes damage to rented premises coverage that provides a separate one million dollar liability limit as well and i believe the premium for that was seven hundred fifty dollars so this argument that four hundred fifty doesn't buy you a million in coverage is as i see it just that an argument of counsel it is predicated on one submission a declaration by james brogan we have objected to that declaration the just the court said that it did not rule on our objections and did not rely on the declaration when it made its decision but mr broken has no personal experience he has no personal knowledge he did not create this policy he did not create or implement or market this program this program was created four years prior he was not employed at house especially at the time it was created by a third party term them vendor but program manager and they pitched it to have some specialty for permission to use their paper to underwrite it so hudson specialty bought it wholesale they had nothing to do with the ratings if you want to save any time you're down under and so thank you i will will give you a minute  half ok thank you so i can appreciate the practical argument however i don't think it holds water under the specific evidence of the case and the language of the policy and if you look at the ratings and if you want the evidence record i can provide that to you on rebuttal but the general liability coverage is rated on a completely different basis it's printed about thousands of spaces of parking good morning your honor said steve allen soon on behalf of hudson may it please the court the district court i believe resolve this case correctly under the four corners of the agreement and  believe and would urge this court it's this simple there is an equation of occurrence coverage and the per event coverage under the parking ia no that has nothing to do with claims made coverage which is completely distinct a completely different trigger which you can see under the employee benefit liability coverage now the single event nature whether it's called an occurrence or a negligent act that's the trigger of coverage that has nothing to do with when the claim is made ok and the court can look at that on the four corners of the policy and not go to the extrinsic evidence and we're done because there's no dispute there's a single limit under cover j it's a million dollars hudson paid a million dollars we're done but if we're going to scottsdale scott's tales see g l policy all of those show that they're not considering the parking   no as a separate coverage worth a million bucks will start the first counselor has a specialty said quote a single event rather whether it be an occurrence or in a good act or mission that is the same fallacy that he substance it's actually presented to the district court that they bought their own person most qualified said that those terms are not interchangeable they want this court to disregard the language of their policy and make them interchangeable my second point is the application does not what why aren't they interchange why because occurrence is defined term as an accident and negligent act or emission is a professional liability concepts and they are legally based differently  ok my other one was the application they want this court to draw the inference that because the box was not checked on errors in the mission that it wasn't rated as a separate risk that is not true the relevant piece of evidence is their quote that the insurer saw their quote does rated separately and their quote says that what we are providing you may not be the same as requested in the application read the terms the policy quotes and also and their own personal scoff i said that it was separately rated thank you thank you thank you counsel the case just argued is ordered submitted the last case on