marshall breached their real estate contract specifically paragraph sixteen of that contract by failing to offer an endorsement to a title policy as a means to insure against loss which might occur following the discovery of an  not have been interpreted by the trial court to specifically and exclusively require an endorsement of the title policy as a means to satisfy the contract all right we'll be reviewing the trial court's factual finding that the marshals breach the isn't this raise and delete approach that the marshals had talked to the title company and now didn't uncertain title insurance coverage you know i don't and i think if you look at the the seller can have the exceptions or routing croce once removed and that has always been bought it is physically removed or have the title insurance to insure commits assure against loss or damage that may be caused by such exceptions are encroachments the very next sentence if you read on it said if the seller fails to have unpermitted exceptions waived and that is exactly what we're talking about here having the exception identified schedule b of the child commitment which would eventually become schedule be in the policy the exceptions anything that the insurance company would not be covering we're talking about having those exceptions waived and those are the death happens  is a specific definition in terms of what the insurance company will cover if the if the if you're looking at the general policy the policy will cover anything that is not covered is there is not an excess action on schedule b and by virtue of the fact that the easier it would not be identified and schedule b it would be a covered risk because it is now been accepted and the best evidence of this is the marshals themselves had a policy like that that the reason to leave if i commute your question is flawed or it's a broader way and i think that's why mr baby proposed it because it would not be subject to any of the limitations that might be found in the endorsement but in fact it would not be an accepted ma that it was more synonymous with ensuring over and if you look at the language here it says if the feller fails to have such uncommitted exceptions waived which is what we believe and in fact george covington testified that raising  providing an endorsement of another method of insuring against loss or damage is to waive an exception on schedule be grazing into leaving it another slang way of referring to th position to win accept it or to have any subjective math and deciding whether title is marketable marketable or not paragraph sixteen its whole purpose is to establish clarity and an actual bright line because that could be this potential he suggested to provide insurance but i guess the thought was that perhaps it could be excluded that was one of the testimony of john point was that it could be excluded certainly the bassman case that we stated speaks to is is that if you look at the contract that says to commit to insure against judge mccaskey interpret it that is only allowing an endorsement we think if you look at the contract from language it both in vision is both  factual question that was created at trial and that's the issue to which the experts testified it was what what is in the title insurance industry a commitment to insure all of the experts including mr baby who ensure what it provides is it provides the opportunity of the policy holder to make a claim that's really all that provides the opportunity to make a claim because the dr easement would not be listed at schedule be so you have the right to make that claim but obviously the title insurer has the right to respond to that claim in any number of ways by denying coverage because there is a specific condition which does not allow a claim to be made for a known title defect which this would arguably be it also gives the title sure the opportunity to raise all kinds of issues with respect to the veiling of the incumbrance in this case the driveway was the method by which that would occur is really what the experts testify to when they distinguish between the reason delete wiggs clearly provide an opportunity for the great to make a claim but then fall short of a commitment to opportunity to make a claim which is something i think we all recognize is sure of a commitment to ensure for the title from the title company because with the endorsement the title company would really be a livin what to do with respect to what the obligation is in that allegation is to provide a commitment to ensure as i have explained with the expert testimony really didn't go to their issue written in helping the court to interpret the contra believe that testimony shown in the record showed that chicago title was willing to issues as if it could do or cement and worth a carrot weren't the carrots required to proceed to closing in order to provide the marshals an opportunity to comply with the contract yes and no yes there was testimony of the fact that mr baby head off to the seller's attorney the marshal's attorney the action no providing the delete the question as to whether or not the cars should have preceded to closing i think is foreclosed by the for mr fitz simons in advance of the closing and in writing notifying the car attended the closing showed up at the closing the buyer's attorney and the buyer did natural but the closing the closing with match cancel so the four in that case hell will since the obligation to provide a good title is an obligation that arises forcing the buyers attorney really didn't have any right to preemptively decide that the seller would not be able to deliver they did not attend the closing and therefore there was no there was no closing if you will there was no the fen by which the seller showed up really didn't convey title ready to sail by that condition and therefore proceed to closing moreover there was no evidence  of the record reflects that the carriers did seek to terminate this contract before they learned to down east and i'm was this at all relevant to the question of breach of contract it was natural for two reasons occurred before their knowledge of the driver he's if it goes to their motive is not relevant but most importantly is when mr covington the carson attorney recognized the drive thank you think you  encroachments and he goes on to say below that the last sentence paragraph sixteen of the contract simply does not address the title of the facts of this gravity the testimony at trial shows and mr covington reiterated at trial that he thought the only way the marshals could close is by removing the easement he did not believe and in any title insurance would have sufficed indorsement raising tilley what have you he rejected it and i think if you look at the july twenty sixth letter that letter tells you why marshals didn't cure because they could have gone back in indorsement was what would have sufficed which is what the car's argued at the time of trial would have sufficed they could have got back in doubt but instead they were told by mr covington don't title insurance is not possible here doesn't matter don't bring it we're not closing period that i think if you look at that letter that explains exactly why financials didn't care when they var clearly could have cared if that is really what was required and we think that is the essence of the breach even if this court were to interpret the contract as requiring an issue or smoke thank you thank you very much so