upon their negligence how are you wasting your own negligence insurance which in this case is fire therefore there is no liability or as you are apparently interpreted only for damages that are caused by a terrible fire but isn't covered by insurance properly then since you didn't get builder's risk insurance but you did have income loss policy that if you were to get a judgment against the defendants you'd be entitled to all the damages fire taking place one patient who is surgery and there's no dispute that those business interruption damages were caused by a fire so what we need to determine here today is does fourteen c believe some nation claims of four to recover damages business interruption damages caused by fire and the world to become a director sort of you know it's a good question i would like to know that because typically in you know the fact that there wasn't that a policy that there would then be a waiver of subrogation to the extent that whatever rights are set forth and the  be maintained pursuant to paragraph fourteen b which is this the project specific coverage which they didn't buy but they are to it they are we in any claim or believe in damages that are caused by and here this is a very critical distinction here because going in that is covered by that policy there's a huge difference reason is because it is actually this language is actually more favorable to the notion of southern geisha than the typical american institute of architects form which typically does say to the extent covered by insurance maintain the project specific insurance spectator or any other but then they draw it by saying or any other insurance so some of the recorded decisions do talk about that language but here it doesn't matter and indeed it doesn't even matter whether the policy defined him in fourteen the requires business interruption coverage or not and the reason is very simple it may be i think you know when we have a dispute like this i don't like i don't think is that damage that was caused by a peril and the answer is yes the perilous fire and we have another question well if it was caused by fire and that's the peril is that this fire they covered peril under this has to cover fire as a peril it always does you will i defy anyone to find a property insurance form i don't know who is through so much as it always is well ok but i would say there's you know this could be a policy if we look at this first waiver we asked whether is this business interruption damage caused by a parent yes a perilous fire is that her a fire covered by this fourteen b policy the answer is yes and the story that means the typical always has to do business risk policy covers the period of fire then it doesn't make any difference whether laid out life insurance or automobile life really insurance or anything because if the car burned up by fire who cares for you right under this contract it's a builder risk whether or not you have a car and burned by fire you relate to a car insurance policy this talks about the premises is it not not a car right if that it's its property insurance that covers premises it's a building medical building at the end of the contract provides for an insurance policy known as builders risk and every builders risk policy covers the perils of fire the why is it relevant immaterial if discussion about what the insurance was and the settlement that took place based on lost business is really not relevant to what this contract said i totally agree i have absolutely agreed because analysis driven by the first of the three waivers in fourteen see it is we look to the policy to be maintained pursuant to fourteen b we ask if it covers the which caused the damages which are being pursued and if it does that's the end of the now since it's also irrelevant as to whether or not there was business loss fire i agree in fact that that's what the second and the third wavers in paragraph fourteen see do the first one is a neutral winner between the owner and the general contractor for  damages caused by apparel covered by the fourteen specific projects specific policy which they never bought then you have these two other additional waivers the first of which talks about going begins with same what the fourteenth c language says it doesn't talk about coverage it doesn't say that we need to the extent that something is covered you're weaving damages which are caused by a peril fire that is covered by the policy know and in this case it's especially true that one of the damages that's caused by fires is direct physical harm to the person order tangible objects but also in this case especially one of the elements of damage which is a particular work element here is business interruption and indeed the early case talks about this and says you know there are numerous attempts to narrow the scope of segregation waivers and the most recent of which is the simplest case in in is look at because of freedom of contract because segregation waivers are favor of the courts because they're an economically efficient way of allocating risk because anybody in the project basically says to the owner we're not all of a bunch of it's duplicative way we're not going to then  insurance carrier to make out and buys into its policy the policies we'll talk about what kind of insurance but if it affords coverage for the project then that's wait so we