structural engineer he purchased errors and omissions insurance from the decided in two they were talking about the consecutive policies that he issued that were issued the first policy the original complaint was filed during the first policy korea it had boilerplate allegations mr haydar however they did not contain any allegations referencing structural defects in the property at the that's correct the later structural defects that arose were seismic and vertical loading in a nutshell those are the facts that pertain to whether or not the buildings going to collapse either do the seismic wind loads over or wait loads because of the roof or issues pertaining to that none of the defects of the court looked at i think the courts looking at paragraph fifteen of the original complaint are implicated and then it may  point in time but what we're looking at what was alleged after time of the original complaint and then of course we deal with the issue of what was actually going on in this context and evidence with submitted to the district liberation but all of these whole of these things you're talking about come within the definition of structural in terms of a structural engineer and do all of the things there in the first complaint and in the second complaint and indeed if i recall correctly he did he actually did supervise the construction and i don't i'm not quite following why the fact they mentioned i would i would suggest that the things that are alleging the original complaint are not things that are to certainly not typically done by a structural engineer they are all within the structure and there's ability because a structural engineer can do everything an architect and a civil engineer can do they're all within including mobilizing supervising and managing a construction project and that's what this guy d it only only in theory that's not what he actually actually did it in his capacity as a structural engineer he prepared the structural plans which went to the seismic and vertical voting issues especially the framing  business the answer to that is he didn't believe that first he didn't believe he had subjective belief that these were not structural engineering issues he also had commercial liability was named as an additional insured on the believes him off the hook in terms of being required to notify the insurance company of claims in may that might be covered by his structural engineering policy how did he get off the hook by saying oh well i didn't think so anyway i thought i was afraid that if i notified them they they might not renew my insurance the next time around how does that i can only reiterate again he didn't believe it and that's based on conversations with the plaintiff counsel himself and also his lawyer at the times conversations with with plaintiff's counsel i can tell you in typical water intrusion cases this is something that would come legally qualified to perform and as a structural engineer he's legally qualified to perform all the services were talking about so that's what it covers but it sounds you are right well i can tie can be that he's covered for some of this but not others that well that's that's correct and that's where the second policy is implicated in the condition jay is when westport relies on to say that the second complete interview first amended complaint artificially is deemed first need on the date the original complaint was filed and in our brief we discuss that that's not fair for a number of reasons they say if it's related and on the assumption that the original complaint did have structural complaints in it that's not fair because there's no obligation for him to report these theoretical or potential claims that were made and also nothing are specific requirements on what is required to be reported you have to report the alleged wrongful act the summary of the facts upon which it is based the date it was occurred and who else would have  issue that that can be if you were here because a summary judgment or don't these create tribal issues as to what claims were actually being made and whether or not they're there fairly  that has been asserted it's not a suit that's been filed it's not a it's not a notice that's been given to you it's just your personal awareness that you have possibly done something that may have been a lead to a claim which is not the situation we have here because because there has been a there was a suit our inquiry started when the suit was filed in the first policy period so we are to the degree that potential claim potential claim can be an issue under the policy it's not in well i guess i don't know for sure what piece this is saying of i guess the idea is if he's saying that he doesn't know what he's what he's done but he thinks he might have done something wrong is that what you mean your honor theoretically didn't know what he did liability in his capacity as a structural engineer well i can there were a number of paragraphs that focused on primary examples out of the original complaint it was paragraph two of these just a few of the examples but two eleven thirteen eighteen and twenty four as an example eighteen is very is very broad it indicates that in relevant part that's arose out of the fishing season design specifications materials play any supervision observation of construction and or development  claim i gather that's his argument i think if i may the specifics that are in the complaint are much much more specific than just a general there were problems with the house when it gets involved with physical injury in property damage it those and because of the condition j which was mentioned which is basically a relation back that if the if two claims arise out of the the same acts and errors and omissions it relates back to the date of the first which would be the original complaint and because we did not get notice during the policy period when that original complaint was first made the amended complaint also find that i mean that the facts of this case and they work all right construction match right well and we have reserved we have reserved our rights going back we have proceeded with this claims made and reported summary judgment ruling on the assumption that there actually have been professional services performed for others there is a reservation in that if because he was really working for himself unless he really wasn't performing professional services for others but that's an i only well it's if i understand correctly it's a really two different analyses that could be applied whether you're looking to see if it's if they're all related to the same the same property