involving policies of insurance that contains a slightly different language than the language before the court in the insurance policy issue to all of the sources we are dealing with a policy here that says we cannot provide coverage for clients but we do provide coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from  physical loss involving collapse of a building or any part of the building caused by indicating we've submitted significant authority to the court that indicates washington law is cl when you're dealing with an insurance policy and you need to determine what is the intention of the parties what is the intention of the insured policy holder or the insurance carrier you must start with a policy language to cases in particular i think consider the structure of the policy and in particular in this case this policy provides coverage for its faults first we're dealing with the first party last year that is policy provides coverage for damage to the policy holders own property provides coverage for certain kinds of direct physical loss or risk of direct physical last there are relevant three exclusions here one is the so called construction farm the court was considering a circumstance where the insurance carrier was arguing that those three exclusions the sceptically would exclude the kind of loss at issue in that case which was an imminent collapse case the court of appeals washington court of appeals in that case looked at it and said that what we have here is exclusions which would exclude coverage if what we had was only decay or if we had only construction defect or if we had only water seepage water see this in this particular instance is what caused that decay we have hidden decay and we have in another section of the policy coverage for collapse or i should say the risk involving director of direct physical last involving collapse if it's caused by indicate that section of the policy also says that even if there is construction defect that contributes to the loss they risk of collapse then there is still coverage for  the construction even if that construction defect contributes provided that the actual collapse or risk of collapse occurs after completion of the construction now assurance points to many instances  their brief about how this building was improperly constructed when one reads the policy however it doesn't matter that there was improper construction or defective construction or design  will pay for loss or damage analyze that and the contents are in his opinion as i recall i must apologize just not one thing that i looked at immediately prior to this hearing but i don't believe there was an analysis of that case i believe it is part of the may please the court i'm gerri still representing insurance i would like your honor at some point to disregard your directions and to direct myself to the suit limitation cost because if i'm right that the suit limitation cause applies in this case then we should have been in the trial court and you shouldn't be here and we actually don't even need to address if you are collapsed so i very much and do want to why don't you go there f within two years after the last occurred that's essentially the same language as was in the panorama village case so we look to the village case although the facts are not perfectly clear on this for the purpose of summary judgment i think we must so what we're looking for is whether the last occurred or after when the last time we said not to have no longer occurred and whether that is before july thirty one thousand nine hundred ninety nine now panorama village says that when you've got that language one collapsed and you're looking at collapse from hidden decay for the purposes of the suit limitation clause the last no longer occurs when one of two things occurs either you have an actual collapse and that's their language actual collapse build to this point that if i may leap to the point just to show you where i was headed it's it's essentially this the facts are under speed about what occurred when the only question here about whether the suit limitation applies is whether it's of plies at the point they do destructive testing in determine that there's decay behind the walls or when as they argue it it applies only when they've actually gone out to do the remediation of pull all the siding off i've  got a chronology tell me where you want to fall down you know there are right i will pull down the chronology here at the very essential point beyond which there can be no cavil and that is there are photographs in the record and i have them in the bench both here that have on or before that date those photographs are a record of that destructive testing there's testimony that may have been in june or it may have been in july but there are the photographs those destructive that destructive testing and therefore the wall v why that's so that's exactly right we know and the record shows and if you turn that have see the bench book i have there the photographs there that show that they took the wall off and saw that the lamination of the paper no later than gypsum corps from water from western intrusion so this is what they saw but it's no longer concealed it's no longer concealed in the spot where they were just the question we have which you can now why should we deal with that now ok well and the reason why you're on is because i thought the record was clear and there wasn't a factual dispute and the only legal dispute was whether it was enough to cut a hole and speak to hi became there or whether as they argue you must tear all the siding off and see all of the decay exposed and for that i was going to point you to panorama village because i am a village has the facts like this and they ran the time burgess was absolutely correct and i think it is analysis of what collapse means is so terribly clear and his analysis of how that works in the context of the policy is terribly clear and w collapse means actual collapse and i do point out that panorama village uses the term actual collapse which is of course a proof superfluity of language what that shows by the very use is that if it's not  we have to analyze that why isn't it dispositive i think you're correct your honor i think it's correct that his is opinion is i think on the salable so far as it goes but it doesn't direct that it doesn't physical lost or damaged and they do that for the purpose of making and all response to that is a policy in which the coverage is defined essentially by the exclusions rather than the than the coverage agreement of course what we know is you don't insure risks you insure the loss or damage you don't insure the risk of fire you ensure the loss or damage is caused by that fact that the so that i read says we will pay for  policy because it's an all risk policy what it's saying is we're going to pay for physical loss direct physical loss or damage to cover property caused by resulting from risk of direct physical loss or damage so it opens up all the possibilities of the risk to be defined by the exclusion of all of it i was stating that as an introduction to explain why the language in the exception which which is another coverage grant you know essence because collapse is excluded so you have to grant it back again and the exception uses that same language and that explains why that language is there it does not ensure the risk of collapse any more than the policy ensures the risk of fire it ensures a lost or damaged involving collapse and that language unfortunately and i whether or not the decay was concealed from sight the unfortunate thing about the panorama village decision i think is it's not a very good decision and i think the court of appeals is right but what it says is it must no longer be only thing that i want to make clear is we have photographs in the record of the case well let me ask you to clarify your position on the policy language and just everybody agrees there was no actual collapse here that's one thing we so in that regard why isn't panorama controlling that a policy of this nature i would add only a couple things one of them is if you're going to consider the sort of limitation issue panorama villages inclusive on that issue because it refers to when did the loss actually occur would you lay with the very same issue in this case and i would also look closely at the language of the first proof of loss or honor that you mentioned which was filed with the insurance carrier early on and every first to some at that time as i've gone through the grief him and i think judge mchugh was also hit on the very issue that you're dealing with yours and that is counsel wants you to take a look at this language and say how would you interpret it quite frankly that's not what your cases say they already do your case say you are to look at this language and see how the washington state supreme court or court of appeals would interpret this language and it's pretty clear from an around of l h from ellis court and from mercer place