embraced the remember decision california union says that the insurance carrier that's on the risk when the property damage starts stays on the residential all the property damage all of the resulting damage is complete in this case nobody even knew this was happening until the explosion until all of the bodily injury and property damage claims were brought about by the fire until that time as  but what happens is as a result of our damage to the gas companies property we create an explosion of fire and our view is that it's the proximate cause it's the damage to the gas companies property that is the proximate cause of all of these other injuries and in fact is a result of the fault proceedings against our contractor that liabilities been adjudicated that the contractors acts in one nine hundred ninety are the proximate cause of the fire and all of the resulting  the damage commenced now our situation would be very different and i think remember would apply in the following scenario had our contractor negligently move these pipes and put them in a position where when the local power station had a ground fault sending massive amounts of current into the ground if none of that had occurred during the policy period then we would be dealing with grammar because what we would have is we would have created a potential nuisance by moving these pipes  close proximity but nothing would have happened during the policy period and in fact if we had put these pipes in the ground the way they were put in five years later there was a ground fault and it caused this explosion then i think  r and the maple's vision the insurance carriers rely on and judge him except that would be appropriate because there you would have essentially a creation of a nuisance but no property damage and recall and remember the underlying action morris versus rammer remember was accused of grading his lot in a ways to newtons but for i believe it was five or six years and nothing happened and it was only when the property collapsed in the image of the neighbor's house that the neighbor was able to maintain an action there they found that there was no continuous force or exposure to harm same with the maples decision where they installed way were it worse apparently for five or six years and then it explodes and in the california union the city and then very carefully review rammer and the other decisions and they note that these cases are not dealing with an allegation or underlying facts of continuous injury t property that's why this case is different and that's why we believe the judge in one simply committed error when he decided to apply rumor as opposed to the case any solution is i don't want to get you away from you at your california union case in that case you had initial property damage manifesting itself when the hillside began to give away it was repaired right at the end of the first carrier's policy term but the underlying in terms of the question as to what property damage is sustained i'm pretty sure that if we had called up selling california gas company during this policy for instance by the way our contractor has foolishly move these pipes and your pipe is now difficult question i was not ask you the only way i would do that as you differently was ask you we're dealing with a contract and so we look at the contract for a specific language and i was going to ask you what is the specific language contractors had simply gone out and in the process of building this new water main its separate the gas line in an immediate explosion had occurred the question is what happens when the severing of the gas line is the result of repeated brief policy doesn't say repeated exposure to the scene has this condition provided it all occurs within the policy period it just sets and i think this is the proper way to target it if every a harmless the period there is exposure to a hazardous condition is created by the insured to third parties property in this case the gas line and it starts while the insurer is on the risk and it continues beyond the policy period until it's having time where you have to compress it down from the first time there's damage to the pipe to when it explodes that's going to be treated as want to turns under this policy and there's no doubt that this was alleged in the underlying actions and it was substantial evidence that was the proximate cause of all of these injuries and the other issues simply looking at california law on the continuous trigger theory which also talks weavings five lines of policy starting with montrose numerous cases in this in this brief that once the events are seven motion it's almost like you're knocking down a row of dominoes keeps continuing even though the repeated damage to property does not manifest and this is what's critical here is allege in our in our underlying complaint that pipe is being subjected to this force and it is being damaged over a period of time but once the once the image commences that policy answers for all resulting damage until it's complete and in this case yes it didn't manifest itself until over five years later when i did it obviously did it in a very big way in our view is that's the proximate cause and this is precisely the type of liability that the city of senior since it was seeking coverage were when it insisted on being an additional named insured under the contractor's primary and access carriers  months a year they might start the process vajra five years from now they might have a blow al but you'd have no coverage i think even though the process that it five years think the difference here your honour's of her stocking number one about a pipe that's in the ground carrying a very dangerous substance we're literally setting up a condition where it's almost like a welder's torch that's hitting  year after year and again there may be difficulties in terms of proof at trial we're sure of the pleading stage this case was dismissed on the kleenex by an order that remarkably enough acknowledged that there was continuous property damage now in our underlying complaint we probably didn't connect the dots if you will in pointing out that southern california gas company was necessarily suing as was obvious however they were going to be held accountable because it was  the explosion that they would look to us in our amended complaint we attempted to bring that i have to point out of the court that we were in fact being sued by a third party for property damage and  insurance carriers the position well ok it was eleven thousand dollars to fix the pipe but i think southern california gas company had the rights and looked to us to make them whole for the damages that resulted from what we destroyed in terms of their property that's why it's this whole continuous triggers is critical to the determination in this case because once we set this in motion that it's taken six months it's going to take in five years but these decisions a risk management pool with other public entities so there was not a liability theory per se that would answer for this we don't have another insurer it's essentially self insured risk and the exposure here was in the millions of dollars we also had the really difficult aspect in this case that we're vicariously liable for the contractor and sons and insurance carriers are refusing to the family and sons in part they say it's because it was a spent themselves and facing you know seven figure recovery would be easier if used like this and possibly even higher so that was one of the reasons that we included the bad faith i'll occasionally was that essentially to provide us a defense in this case we were vicariously inquired and mentioned this is a contract action not toward action what we're dealing with here is the terms of the contract the insurance and the indemnity claim of the city for damages that are during the policy period property damage is defined as meaning physical injury to tangible property occurring during the policy period the policy period in this case was january t we do not have a continuous progressive fire we do not have a continuous progressive explosion we do not have a continuous progressive burning for mr schwab none of that applies therefore the whole idea of the continuous trigger or the montrose type of injury or damage simply does not exist in this case and otherwise all of the things that is one distinction that the city has attempted to seize upon in part b of the city's argument in the reply brief they claim that first states coverage agreement is broader than national unions but they ignore the definitions of bodily injury and property damage that i just read to the court the definition of an occurrence in the first state policy is as follows occurrence means with respect to bodily injury or property damage and accident including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions which result in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured now the words bodily injury in the words property damage in that coverage grant or in all capitals those are defined work so then we go back to the meaning of those defined words and as i pointed out just a moment ago bodily injury is bodily injury sustained during the policy period property damage is physical injury to tangible property during the policy period and again the policy period is january two thousand nine hundred ninety to january tenth one thousand nine hundred one and the injuries and damages that we're talking about here occurred five years later october two thousand nine hundred ninety six so the answer to your question justice pleasure the only difference between the two policy languages that has any relevance here whatsoever is just that coverage grants that i just re and final paragraph that i think is telling all the images that arise from exposure to the same general conditions are considered to arise out of one of her now if the same condition is of this type to the arc welding and they define occurrence to include continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition and then they go on to say in that policy that all damages that arise out of this occurrence are covered by the policy i think that isn't horton for the courts determination similarly the national union policy and by the way let me just damage you going to treat it as one event there's no women's haitian on heart and i don't think you can go one of the definitions of bodily injury and property damage and say that because they say that has to occur within the policy period that you then ignore the