there's no just in this case that it must be one of two things either an intricate and the shipment of things for which insured in this case the every agreed in writing prior to the the mississippi location you know don't we have to read the endorsement together with the policy it's part of the policy and then how do you address the enter company situation then when you've got another location in mississippi that the insured is then your honor and intercompany transfer between two different companies within interrupt company transfer of which would be between the same company there's no question that hancock was a  there's a couple different range men's but a fabric and hancock her brief decided that they wanted to store their fabric in a warehouse they didn't want to get in the real estate business and they just released warehouse shipped everything to their to the warehouse you know they know their name on the outside of the warehouse and i mean but they were they didn't have title to it they were paying rent you suggest that that would not be an intra company transfers no i would of your operating the warehouse that's an interest transfer and frankly that's not unusual in the world of manufacturing or manufacturers who own and operate a warehouse there are manufacturers use an entire warehouse and then there are men actually there are twenty houses and there are manufacturers who use a combination of the above you're saying that in any situation where you have a rd party operating the warehouse as well that is not sort of own you know the four walls of the state but this is clearly a situation where we truly is an internet company and a rd quarter situations that is why i think it may be different but i don't you know i don't know enough of the facts and i don't have enough gold bullion they asked why i can't answer that question for well it does sound like it's inter company until you get in my mind at least until you spend more time with the endorsement and i'm still here stuck on page a one thousand of the record which is the store's indorsement and here you know it's not just listing bad one mississippi and why would you list baldwin mississippi where you're putting your property if you didn't think you're getting coverage there but the last two entries on that endorsement contemplate storage location that you own lease or operate and storage location that you don't own lease or operate so it's  really just contemplates that the insured is going to have another storage location somewhere else that its property is going to reside at and i think i think that the problem here in my mind is how do i read that together with the rest of the policy in the intercompany in truck company dynamics so yes your honor i thank you for asking that question that is a good question so certainly that location is listed and there's a recognition that there very well could be and there is some coverage there provided it was pursuant to a written agreement so yes the if you want company wants to know where that what product is being stored and intricate pany if it was a warehouse that was owned and operated owned and operated whether it's least our own by fab and that's interest company this is clearly by plain meaning definition inter company the fact that it's wish you may use some of the now or you can hold it in reserve for a bottle which was your preference innovations inc judge daniels got this right it properly helped the goods satisfy the definition of merchandise and transit it properly held that neither of the exclusions raised by federal applied and he properly held that for break was entitled to the reimbursement of all charges incurred attempting to convert and minimize the loss of each of these points regardless of who bears the burden the record or well meaning or does break that rule can't point to any facts to show the goods were not covered under the storage endorsement judge daniels correctly held that all of the goods at the hancock warehouse were covered under the endorsement and indeed the evidence in the record shows that both parties understood that nor c to any facts that show that having dishonesty or willful conduct when it's all the goods that advanced notice to break in with the express permission of the bankruptcy court and federal can't point to any facts showing that any of the suing labor expenses  main argument when it's something that not appear in this case until after judge daniels had already ruled on liability they raised it at the damages phase as a last ditch desperate but putting that aside and i think judge sinatra got to that this endorsement isn't is is intended quite clearly to cover the goods now glen do back was testified that he knew that owned any of these distribution centers that were listed policies in short all of the goods at these locations irrespective of whether the br owned any of them irrespective of whether they had entered into some written agreement to arrange insurance he testified on page six hundred and twenty three dollars of the appendix my opinion is that we were covering those goods at the warehouse period page also on that page my intent was to cover goods in storage that's what my intent is every time i write an ocean cargo and i'm covering warehouse storage covering the type of goods that they say that they're saying that they're storing their well and coverage same page is asking how did you understand with respect to the bangkok facility he said quote i was covering one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars of stock for breeding stock and that's of course marine cargo requirements that one would trigger coverage here but the fact is that the intent clearly there's the undisputed fact that the parties have this mutual intent for this to be covered and in addition to that it clearly satisfies the definition of intercompany shipment so i mean we've got this covered one hundred and twenty seven dollars ways from sunday let's talk about the exclusions for a moment if you would mind why don't we have a tribal issue of fact on whether the exclusions apply i mean we can sit here and define what dishonest acts means and what willful misconduct means we can give you definitions as a matter of law but but the facts seem to me to be going to both the directions on whether there is a dishonest act here or whether there's a willful misconduct here so why don't we have a tribal issue on that issue your honor because both parties stipulated there wasn't a tribal issue of fact judge daniels asked mr silverberg whether there were any travel issues of fact on that on the exclusions and he said no as did my colleague mr board and i would say that there are no issues of fact they had ample opportunity to develop such that to you on the record i believe it's stock at number sixty from the underlying dr what you can do is if you can ask me that before your time is up and fine otherwise you could follow up with the following argument just with obviously took a different position and i believe that hancock didn't not there was no merit to hancock's position but yet the case settled without any fighting but there's nothing suggesting that han characterizations repeated characterizations of this hancock activity as a theft your position is it's not a judicial admission but is it nothing that's account at all for anything respectfully counts for nothing i this claim candidate you know he's a he's a c e o who felt like he got ripped off and he's calling it a but there's certainly no judgement of that i believe i believe your honor was right to use the word characterization that certainly had a judge daniels took it but there is nothing nothing past that that's all they have your honor  i have thirty seconds left i would just like to say that again on the sewin labor believe we're entitled to zero dollars ten cents on the dollar because again we made our prime official showing that all of reasonably  wrenn let's go back to mr silverberg you have reserved two minutes we'll put two minutes on the clock and why don't we hear your rebuttal  property in the warehouse was covered simply because the warehouse was listed converted from an intercompany transfer to injure a company specifically said and this is in our reply brief and in the record again i guess it goes back to what their agreement was with the warehouse and its goes back to again the policy itself it's insured if it's pursuant to a written contract in this particular instance according to the un quoting to fabric it was only five to allegations in the complaint and i quote hancock's sold the merchandise for hancock's benefit without informing fabry and without fabrics knowledge that's a thirteen of the record that's a factual