that is as much a requirement for the application of this exclusion as that the underlying transaction a loan or an extension of credit i'm sorry did you get paid well no but the problem was not doesn't keep me alive it may or may not be alone but what i was saying was that the the nonpayment or default provision isn't triggered at least until the person has an obligation to pay back and in this case he didn't have that we'll see what you know the relevance of that as well everybody agrees that the bond doesn't cover credit risk credit risk means somebody can't pay you back somebody has a contractual obligation to pay  my and they can't they can't form that doesn't that doesn't happen until the obligation ripens until they get one of these and i mean essentially what you're doing is you're lending money to schwartz who u right he wasn't required to return money to us and tell december twenty first two thousand and one by then he was a fugitive and he could be prosecuted under section twenty one thirteen because even though that's that's part of the concept we also have on the spirit of evidence that's under federal banking regulations and other generally accepted accounting principles a t m currency like the bank has emphasized that the exclusion is written in terms not only of a loan but a transaction the nature of a loan or an extension of credit i think that kind of begs the question of what the nature of a loan is but we also have history here that's that language came into the bonds in order to ensure that it excluded truck kind of losses which which it is now recognised as doing but that's a completely different from these a t m transactions how would you distinguish the difference between a loan on the one hand and the transaction is the nature of the loan on the other here they obviously go their separate meetings well i think him it was careless in its handling of this money and of course in retrospect the bank itself concluded that it should have done a better job but that doesn't make the underlying transaction a loan and it doesn't void the insurance human versus truck insurance exchange one of a long line of california cases that says that any exclusion must be construed in favor of the insured and one of the things that means is if there's any even if there's a reasonable interpretation under which the last who did if there are reasonable interpretation under which it's not the solution doesn't apply as far as a bad faith issue is concerned i'm content saying is that golf could in essence with a minimal of due diligence and very very little controls send its money three thousand miles to the other side of the country to somebody who is going to take that money and really have free reign over doing what they want with it and that risk is going to be covered by gulf insurance policy why not i mean that's seems to be a ripe area for throw them maybe you wouldn't want to insure the r one situation he had title to the money so there would be a loan dark humor that you know you you have to pay it back at the end of the year and when his defense be i don't know you until the end of the year it's my money i don't think you'd be questioned they had possession of the money but going back to to your hypothetical in your question the fact of the matter is the bank demanded repayment the bank told mr schwartz we want this money back the three hundred twenty and the latter agrees to return at a future time a sum equivalent to that which he borrows now there's nothing in there about title title may be a factor in deciding whether or not this is a loan but it is not the only factor in this certainly supposed to cut in favor of the insured and yet you're saying that on summary judgment on this kind of record you can go under color california  third party that whole process is ensured if there is something that happens during that process i'm just as different i'm sorry they dealt with mr schwartz they went to his condominium in new jersey and saw what he what he had they got applications from him they got credit reports from him they they did their due diligence they  way they were really schwartz to do this they were giving him the money directly yes and that was the first rule in their own papers which we've cited the a t m operator is never to have access to the cash yet in this case nature of a loan or an extension of credit and that's important to remember this isn't simply a loan exclusion this is written broader than that and and certainly this has aspects of a credit extension we've talked about title but you know the bank itself in a nation said this is really at least this is what they explained to mr schwartz when they asked for their money back and a lease of course is an extension of credit whereby title does not pass when i lease my car i don't get title the bank still has title but i have the car i would take that car to mexico i mean i'm not going to obviously i'm doing something that i shouldn't be doing and that's you know but that's all part of the credit risk so who are dealing with this focusing on simply a loan and the definition of a loan in a hypertechnical sense again if you look at the definitions of learn that we've cited there's nothing in there that says that one of the requirements of a loan is the title passes credit expansion something in the nature of a loan those are also included in the in the exclusion and it's written in a broad fashion so that it would encompass these types of things you know this is the type of incident that really offers and making a conscious decision that we will do business with you because we expect to get a good return for our money and that's what they did here and even better rules within their own internal rules to do that and i don't see th rest falls with the insurance company rather than the back thank you concept of a loan that we find in all of these cases and we don't find on the record here