issue of the coverage issue before the court is whether a professional liability insurance policy provides coverage for money damages awarded in arbitration as a result of an insur liability policy with a single exception that exception however a bit sarabjit the coverage provided by that policy for professional design services and for money judgments without the need for property damage and bodily injury as expressly covered in the policy that ruling should be reversed and mean restored to this professional liability policy and thousands of similar professional liability policies issued to design professionals such as architects engineers and consultants the district court's ruling should be reversed because the corps fail to apply aeration right that's true but only for who are the professionals the principle of see if i is an individual who is who is a design professional involved in fish policy spoke about professionals consulting doing your professional work and as i understood you were new to hanging your hat on the consulting part to typically they weren't doing consulting work they were doing design work they were doing both design and c f i was hired to do both the design and the build they were and they were underwritten by rock hill as a consulting professional these policies are issued not just to architects and engineers they have a whole line of environmental consultants who who are  under written this is it called an environmental program and see advise me and i understand that typically when a professional looks a lawyer needs to consult he either is consulting with another professional or he is seeking consulting services maybe the services of a of a c p a or a doctor or some other professional in the normal parlance of the word consult here basically what he was doing is designing that that's right and in this unique in industry which is fishery enhancement where you're dealing with issues like providing the proper amount of fish food redesigning the river so that it is that ecclesia those are those are consulting services that are provided by individuals who proceeded to do is design a design a stream announcement project along the street that's correct and every time it flooded you've watched all the work out that's correct and so they sought insurance on which occasion they sought insurance with respect to the arbitration that was brought by heirloom for which they obtained a proximately nine hundred thousand dollars judgment against my client for their professional negligence in the design the design they presented had a testimony from another consulting individual mr ross in who indicated that that design would have failed under his standards of professionalism and that it was that's what resulted in the failure of the of the fishery design the rules of construction that are critical here are that simple words to one last question so the there was two types of work on this project one was the design work the other was the build work which is the actual construction right when the policies excluded your work  which of your work was excluded do you claim was excluded the construction you the build part of it the build part of it the part not the design part of it thank you and if you look at the first rule of construction of course misapply is that individual words within an exclusion are not to be given a dictionary broad definition that the this court decided the pomp of case applying colorado law and specifically recognized contrary to what the district court said when it when it it made the statement that words within an exclusion cannot be interpreted in multiple fashions the pomp a case dance for exactly the opposite of that the words are to be to the judged in context you were to look at the surrounding words and you two are valuate based upon how it fits within the policy and how that word is used in in that particular between vision and that's not what the district court did the district court also fundamentally read out of the policy both the subject matter and the purpose of the of exclusion act which is faulty workmanship and that exclusion is really the key to your case absolutely that faulty workmanship exclusion literally what rob hill has done is read those words out of the policy so they read the exclusion as if it now says this insurance does not apply to based upon arising out of or for any loss cost or expense it's nonsensical if you look at faulty workmanship  have to give it meaning it defines the purpose and scope and if you look at all of the words that surround faulty workmanship faulty workmanship defining and restricts the words your work you work is defined as including things like work materials parts operations quipped all of those words fall through workmanship material works parts equipment can be read and harmonize together they all denote physical construction not professional design and so the only way to harmonize those words and read the language consistent in context is to leave the your work as a reference scene construction work in addition the colorado courts apply the reasonable expectation doctrine and they apply it as a tool of interpretation even if there is regardless of whether there is ambiguity in the policy the district court may so detailed findings can clarify s to get you to that result where coverage is provided at it it is simply another one of these construction tools that's available and the district court found that he had in essence if this raided the policy in it and ruled contrary to the reasonable expectations of the insured and the district court justified that because it made the argument that this was a one off that this was this was a policy that uniquely yes i'd be happy to your aren't the issue is that the district court found that c f i presented inadequate evidence of cars ation testimony with respect to damages with respect to one particular type of damage which is business logs that ruling needs to be reversed for three reasons the first reason is because we brought in a claim for statutory damages and under that claim if there has been a delay or a denial that insurance benefits we recover statutory damages and there is no need for causation we've cited those cases i bet but that's different from the common law claim that that's true but but but the district court overlooked all of that and granted summary judgment on the statutory claim rockhill has not opposed that they essentially conceded that summary judgment must be reversed must be reversed the first is that we've brought a claim for failure and it is and actually we have fairly outrageous conduct in terms of what happened here rockville recognize coverage they recognize design coverage throughout the entire pendency of the case they made a fifteen thousand dollars offer to settle ignored the recommendation of the defense counsel ok so this is the point is is that is as the wind treatise recognizes in a business loss as a result of this and just saying well we were doing well and then this happened and then we were not doing well it's not that's correct but what the district court didn't address was the duty the side of the district court looked at simply that the damages related to business losses and those could be measured differently than the duties of the duty to settle could be measured for example if the court were to finders you have to show damages for common law and faith recovery we do but we can show them with respect to the duty to settle based upon the fact that case was not settled then we now have a nine hundred thousand dollars judgment against my client and if it had been settled early when it should have been that judgment would not have been there or the amount of reduced in addition just straight up in terms of the district court's analysis the evidence here was sufficient colorado cases are clear that an owner's testimony with respect to cause ation and damages to business losses is appropriate and competent evidence and can establish the fact of loss here we have literally a ten year history of uninterrupted income to my client of a million dollars a year that literally in two thousand and seventeen went to zero and the reason it went to zero was because of they were spending all of two thousand and sixteen fighting this arbitration and they had lost all of the referrals many of the evidence of that before the district court there was and the and the owner had testified that what happened was most of his referrals come from real estate brokers who were working with heirloom they no longer refer cases because this case did not get resolved his business went from a million dollars a year to zero immediately and under the cases that we cite the hendrick case and the boardwalk apartments case that timing issue is important and can serve as a basis to demonstrate causation through and you're out of touch thank you that this professional liability policy does not cover the cost complete the insurance work that is a basic precept that makes this case really simple and it's not just argument for they did complete their work i know that's reputedly argument then your proofing but they did repeat they did complete their work and again completed their work and again completed their work so i don't understand that a down market is different but it's not just a completion of the work it's the completion of the work in conformance with the specifications that aired in the gate c f i it's not just that you can go and try and do it and fail say well i tried and done now that you have to completion  home design to me sounds like building you have to you all to hear action have to look at the definition of your work and your work is broadly defined to include your work your operations and representations about your work there's nothing in there that takes them take the scope of sea ice work cards it up and says oh we really only meant to apply to this facet of your work and not that  go to dictionary definition of workmanship i mean work and workmanship are not some sort of mysterious concept that we need to be consulting dictionaries we just need to look at the defined term your work reality your work without the words material remember the scope of the work wasn't limited to just designing construction see if i was doing a host of things they were interfacing with corps of engineers they were selecting and identifying and organizing the tiriel like they were architect or an engineer so that scope of the coverage is there for broader scope of the coverage is broader because it covers everything that the insured is doing it's professional capacity but and then there are certain categories of damages that may or may not   pay for the damage years it depends on what the nature of the dam nor did you cover or paid for the damages that you know we don't cover repair placement costs correct those are excluded but that's because of the nature of the damages can i give you an example of what might be covered right so let's take that the facts of this case see if by constructs the fishery doesn't do it correctly it fails and not only does the scope of the work fail the actual project fail but let's say that cause the neighborhood property to flood ok so we would pay what would not be excluded and what we would potentially pay as damages are the cost to repair the property owner's home so you're saying this coverage would that our coverage in ireland or the c g l so that's not an issue here but i only give you that as an example i'm not saying that third party property damage is the only type of damage that would be covered any kind of economic dam also economic losses that would arise from anything outside the scope of c s guys back again to a third party who says that what you're required to to anybody to end is a third party a third party it wouldn't it wouldn't cover only damages that heirloom was awarded the neighboring property owner didn't their property didn't flood nobody got injured if it happened we would have a very different case and we would pay those potentially those damages absolutely but we still wouldn't pay the of the district court go off on this third party and that all the district court gave the example to illustrate the example that this is not a looser coverage i mean the district court thought that maybe this is a bad deal because this is very strange cover the cost to repair or replace the eyes work remember the policy the terms and the conditions all put together reflect a very careful allocation of bricks i mean that's why you have these terms and conditions  we had architect here at the architect designs a building and the building collapses is the owner of the building remunerated for claims against the architect for negligence of the design of the building so i mean just matrix in your question if we insured an architect right and the design was bad right and the building collateral that would be outside if it's that would be outside the scope architects that injure and i would be very careful about it would depend on what the tree was i was trying to go there at the beginning of trying to figure out who the professionals were that were being insured well this is i mean this is a contractor it's not it engineer an architect so those policies could be very different of course everything depends on the policy terms all this this individual isn't designed right designed this project c i i their design or their builder began so many things don't just call them a builder fishery failed right then we would potentially cover that in that instance because those like you would if the architects designed fail did cover if that is now building it that is outside the scope of their work yes if the architect had  with the construction of the building that was a what they were hired to do it was strictly one facet but it was the design that was the cause of the problem in the collapse of the building not the construction right and so if the building collapses then that potentially covers that because but it's not going to cover the cost to redo the design potentially i mean as i said right depend on the specific language so the demarcation here is between what was the insured hired to do we're not going to cover the cost to redo their work we don't cover the cost of your failure to get a performance bond i mean that makes crystal clear that this product is still in it to use the vernacular what you're saying is that you cover the design aspect but not the construction or the no no no let me be precise we cover the professional services we exclude a category of damages that result from the faulty performance of those professional services and we don't exclude a whole other spot the other types of damages that may result you have to look at not only the conduct but the damages resulting damages that's what defines coverage thank you for all these reasons because it is not performance find it does not