good morning your honors ma'am please the court my name is jeffrey linda quest i represent the plaintiffs appellants jang cam n j oak can mr and mrs kim are homeowners in south windsor several over a couple of decades by one supplier and thousands of homes may be affected the cans like many who have found themselves in the sun fortunate situation have a look to their homeowner's insurance carrier for coverage of the damage and for assistance and remediating the condition which entails the complete removal and replacement of all of the concrete basement is the insurance policy the guarantee somehow that the the house was soundly constructed you know your honor doesn't guarantee doesn't it in fact have exclusions for among other things settling cracking bulging expansion of walls and flaws floors and another exclusion for defect weakness inadequacy faulty or unsoundness in workmanship and construction and materials used in construction yes your honor why don't those apply i don't understand well your honor many of the policies of insurance that are issued in the state of connecticut contain an additional coverage for collapse this very policy did in the first instance contain such an additional that puzzles me too i mean collapse can come from many sources and there are whole issues in connecticut law and i thought quite sensibly resolved as to what collapse means and quite sensibly says you have to actually wait until the house really does collapse if it's inevitable that it will collapse under the circumstances but all seems to have to do with the extent of the damage it doesn't seem to me to have much to do with the causes when it's quite clear that the policy intends to cover foreseen events if a lightning strike happens and then the building is in danger of collapse the collapse coverage clicks in but if there is an inherent defect in the construction materials why what why does the fact that it covers collapse trump those exclusions well your honor two points under the additional coverage for collapse which of course has been deleted defective materials as one of the named perils for the collapse my suggestion is that' additional coverage that is excluded doesn't happen here in this case right well yes the additional coverage was deleted but along with the exclusion for collapse well anderson i just i don't i it seems to me you have a much better answer to  judge lynch's question miss i misread this policy and the answer that you gave because a judge when she was talking about the the the losses in not insured which are specified like under item three defect in materials used in construction but immediately under that it says however we do insure for any resulting loss from those and so it seems to me that the clear meaning of the policy at least as i read it is that you don't get it if you're not insured for a defect in the materials if you come and say hey this is a defect in the materials i want coverage you do get it you do have coverage from resulting loss from defect in the materials used in construction yes your honor and that's and that's i hope where i was going well i would have urged you to get there pretty quick because i think your success in the case if you have any likelihood of success depends on that right and that's why i was speaking to the it as it both under item one and under item three under item one was a section one losses not income not not insured  there are two different different parts item three clearly says we do insure from any resulting loss from a b or c and b is defined defect in the construction material unless it goes on to say it doesn't unless the resulting loss is itself a loss not insured by this section one unless the resulting loss is not insured right and so that's why it becomes critical that the collapse exclusion was deleted along with the collapse additional coverage because now a loss by collapse is not excluded in the first instance under the policy and as your honor noted the connecticut law is clear that house need not unless explicitly stated in the policy tumble to the ground over a loss is the collapse i believe so your honor now that that collapse is no longer and excluded loss under the policy the absolute simply been taken out of the the previous that the the printed the printed matter that excluded collapse from coverage was deleted so that the do so that the exclusion of collapse is not a part of the policy exactly on  that's why i believe that the district court erred and failing to protect the the reasonable expectations of of a homeowner it's an all risk insurance policy all risks are covered unless they're excluded if an exclusion is deleted it only makes sense that that perilous is now covered under the policy either in the first instance or if it's the result of faulty inadequate or defective materials as a result and worse with  view in my view what happens is the policy says we do not cover collapse under any circumstances wait we do cover some collapses and we're going to give you an additional coverage for that in the endorsement they take away the additional coverage the limited give back of coverage but they also take away the exclusion with it so now collapse is not excluded at all it's part of the all risk coverage grant you know they they took it all away gave a little back then they gave it all back by deleting the whole kit and caboodle i understand the district judge instead of reading the language literally said something along the lines of that it wouldn't make sense for the insurer to have done that and so she interpreted the policy as essentially protecting the insurer from the words that the insurer put into the policy that she didn't think it made sense that's right you heard two to delete the exclusion of collapse right with the way i read the district court's opinion was that she said they intended to delete the extended intended to exclude collapse coverage so of course they deleted it all but that doesn't really follow if they intended to exclude collapse coverage they would have kept the collapse exclusion and exclude it at all and not only did they did did the endorsement not maintain consistency through the policy it introduced another inconsistency by adding in another collapse reference and a different part of the about the ensuing loss issue if you look on page six of the plaintiff's reply brief they've actually abandoned their and suing last argument they state there among other things that state farm misconstrued misconstrued as the kims argument is advocating it work theory of loss of coverage and this is not the case and then they go on to talk about essentially how they really relying on the argument of the direct accidental physical laws and one of the exclusions should apply abandoned that argument secondly in order to have him resulting loss you can have that means a loss can be covered only if they are distinct and separate pull from the original excluded loss and here the plainest and not allege any resulting are ensuing losses that are distinct or separable from the original excluded loss consisting of and caused by the deterioration cracking of the foundation they also have been alleged any independent defect would be an independent resulting loss caused by the defect in concrete that is independent and distinct from the effect in th it could be i don't know what you mean chance to come back to that you're right about if he got out of the house collapses if the house collapses you have you have a defect in the concrete that's right that's something that you could claim about except the policy says is excluded that would still be excluded because the did it would still be excluded effects in the concrete is excluded because the policy says we do not insure for defect in the materials used but then it says we do insure for resulting losses so judge lynch is asking what would be a resulting loss and i'm adding that question if as a result of the defect in the concrete the house collapses is that a resulting loss from a defect in the company that is not a resulting loss because it would stay no coverage it would be still it would not be separate and distinct from the original issue which is the cracking in the defective concrete  the cracking your honor the cracking exclusion and the policy specifically talks about whether a loss occurs suddenly or gradually involves isolated or widespread damage and i'm talking about the defect in us in the construction materials yes and it goes on to say we do insure for resulting loss from defect in the concrete and why isn't if the defect in the concrete causes a wall to collapse and fall down who in the english language wouldn't think that was a loss that resulted from the defect in the concrete but it has to be a the original loss excluded loss in this case is caused by the defect in the concrete under connecticut law the resulting loss has to be distinct and separate from that you don't this isn't right this is ups of the house is something distinct and separate from from from from it from defective concrete that's not it an a away from there i think i see what you're getting at in that i believe i have encountered in other situations the kind of distinction that you're making of the resulting losses being independent right and let me suggest a possible situation suppose the defective workmanship was in the roof and there was a problem with the roof that led to leaks from a rainstorm and then the the leaks damage the homeowners property in the up stairs bedroom or something like that right so my question to you if you know the answer is would the homeowner be able to claim for repairs of the roof question a and question b would the homeowner be able to claim for the damage to property caused by the leak would either of those be a resulting loss in the sense that you're using the term it might be your honor but i would say again in this case there is absolutely no allegation by the plaintiffs of any made because my i have this belief i guess we may have to do some independent research of our own that there is something to your argument about what resulting loss means in connecticut law but i don't recall rejected the application of the ensuing loss doctrine and the context of cracking cement in basements though we might look at that yes that would be a case to look at it for us the question of resulting loss right did not answer my question which is did either party brief the applicability of the resulting loss clause to salvage this claim and give us the various kinds of case law that you are now alluding to as stablish ing a somewhat technical meaning for resulting loss that we could look to to evaluate the question the judge will always asking we have brief that in our appeal the court to the sand sony case which we think is squarely on point here the plaintiffs rely extensively on the beach decision from a connecticut supreme court in the sand sown case says squarely that beach does not apply to a policy like state farm's that does not use the word collapse in a coverage provision the beach decision was written by the superior court of connecticut that was adopted in full by the  no six of our brief decisions of state intermediate appellate courts are binding on the court unless there is persuasive evidence that the high court and state in this case the connecticut supreme court would reach a different conclusion and there's no evidence of that here the beach case that is the supreme court case that is relied on by the plaintiffs is simply not apply couple here that case unlike state farm's policy did provide special cover for collapse in the policy it issued the policy excluding cracking settling and other items unless there was a collapse of the building the case did not define what collapse was so the connecticut supreme  construed in favor of the insured and said they can be a substantial substantial structural impairment was sufficient in that case to be able to constitute a collapse your point about  that's not really right states yes sandstone squarely says that beach case which is the primary case that they rely on is not relevant and they try to make the argument that's because there's no collapse coverage because there is no collapse coverage collapse is not used in any relevant term of the state farm policy it is used in two places it's used used in yes it is used to say that it is a rather complicated things being apart from the things where it that we're where it was excluded where the provision was taken deleted from the policy there's another one which is as something to the effect that that we don't cover for collapse when it would be caused by  the board if the policy goes to the goes to the trouble of saying it's not excluded when it results from an earthquake that's right and it is our position as a district court properly concluded that there could be some collapse coverage under the policy but it cannot be excluded by any of the remaining exclusions in the policy and here the district court properly concluded as of as did the court in san sown here has the is anything in the policy them that says that a collapse which you acknowledge could be covered by the policy right why isn't it covered when the collapse is results from something wh insure for any resulting loss from defect in the construction materials isn't it isn't that at least ambiguous as to whether it gives cover i think the exclusions for cracking but i'm talking about the part that comes immediately after it saying however we do ensure for resulting losses from the ones ones that result from the ones that are on ambiguously not in straight but those losses again to be qualified as resulting losses they have to be distinct and separate will from the original excluded loss which is not the case here or there also has to be with you why on on for that that's not something in the policy is that when did the same and so in  that is that based on the proposition that when there's something unclear in a policy that the insurance companies drafted the rule should be that you read it in favor of the insurance company the draft of the policy no your conceded it your honor i just think that the stronger poppet proposition is that to a layman if you have excluded an item apparel under an all rest policy and you delete that exclusion that is now rest that is covered being collapse and i don't believe that the sand sown case bars that proposition sand some own found that beach was an applicable because the policy there did not i mean to articulate where i think the panel has been going in its questions to both sides i asked you at the beginning whether the entire list of the exclusions which go to construction defects materials inherent vice president about a dozen different ways that they're excluding risks that come from the basic problems that preexisted the ownership of the house and the policy and anything else and i ask you about that and your answer to me did not start with zero but that same paragraph says but losses resulting from ever any argument in your brief that the inherent be facts construction material defects exclusions do not apply here because of the resulting loss issue and then the subsidiary question would be if there was your adversary has suggested that it was abandoned in the reply brief i don't believe i ever briefed the resulting l find in your brief apart from is there any questions of waiver anything like that i will not be helped by your brief in finding response of cases to the ones that are cited on pages twenty four and twenty five of the