may proceed for the appellant good morning welcome to the court of appeals you may  for this claim coverage for this claim or that under the policy especially all what was your i'm just i was looking for your i guess claim that you submitted and i couldn't find it in the record maybe you did it or y what was the actual claim of covered loss the claim was for water damage through the roof of the building the water damage in resulting that resulted in the building so assume we agree with you on the anti concurrent causation why isn't that far by the exclusions themselves as your friend on the other side the policy it and explain this to me so cover it costs of loss i'm looking at paragraph three dollars and i'm looking at limitations on it and that's limitations paragraph five it says the interior of any building or structure caused roof or walls through which rain snow dot dot dot so why doesn't that limitation apply this limitation ok so is not applicable to the weight of rain that collects on the roof so you don't need it collapse in order for the weight of rain that was on the roof to seep into the building and cause damage based on section  so essentially the court the trial court relied primarily on that on your boys which is one of the cases in michigan that they really started this three which says that if mr mr toil i think i get that can i ask a lot more and i promise i i just that your friend again makes another allegation that the wear and tear on exclusion bars your coverage and i don't i didn't see a response to that so i'd love one because i think everyone agrees there was wear and tear well  caused by or resulting from any of the following and then it says under al other types of losses wear and tear so if it's caused by  expert conceded in part that wear and tear was a cause down the road but the cause was the cause of the wear and tear there i guess you could say was the defective design that was the cause of the wear and tear but but how i get around that judge is the is the ensuing law because the ensuing law was says that we will pay for those things listed which is a design that results in the covered were paid for those things listed in paris a bruise the not otherwise excluded by any of the other exclusions that results in a cover cause of loss but they didn't include that language it says that they will pay for the resulting damage from design and that resulting damage was the water leaking into the building and causing the issue of the building none of the a plan his own expert and roofer is is this was going to last fifteen or twenty years by the time this incident happened in two thousand and seventeen this was over thirty five probably way more than that more than double is used a light and a problem with the room was one that he had a was no i understand that in your brain and counsel you explain that in your brief i understand the drain issue but what i don't understand it seems to me the roof damage is covered this isn't all risk policy the roof damage would be covered but for a proper exclusive and i'm not sure what exclusion applies to that the exclusions in two l which says damage caused by a one cause the scooted that's all that matters you can have fifty causes to what cause a problem if one of the fifty is excluded there is no coverage so in this case it is then this rule has the water and the water is the logic of that is that and tell me if i'm wrong if there's a one million dollars of damage to the roof and five dollars of that damage is caused by wear and tear in other words by just assume one percent so whatever that is say one hundred dollars and one dollar is caused by wear and tear the whole claim is barred as correct because the policy says it has if it the loss or damage is caused by all results from after the building is i mean how can you ever get insurance with the wear and tear exception because you're supposed to probably maintain your roof the testimony was probably maintain a roof wouldn't have this you want to have is caused by design and the design is what causes moved to tears because you've got the drain five inches above so you have you're always going to have five inch the water on that roof and tilted back right because the drain was five inches higher than the us they get part of the roof and the other issues are workmanship specification construction that's why this policy is not a guarantee you have a good roof it covers it from the last residence if you have a windstorm or something and that results caused by a resulting from so in this case judge drain granted our motion based on the exclusions for the wear and tear duration latent defect as never being discussed in their brief they also granted because the limitation form re injuring the building that's not discussed in their brief and then the other reason was because of the design specifications workmanship and they got their free so did they lose because a poor fish tour irrespective what we think of the policy correct why they haven't did respond to two or three reasons why we won the motion and on that the rd reason is this in suing lost argument that is incorrect because what that really is is an exception or  in a covered cause of loss we all pay for the cover cause of lost well we have to go back to the definition there was no covered cause of loss why because the limitation says it would cover different coming in a building and the other reason is the other and admitted three times a record or argument wait while that of judge jury and said wait a minute there is no collapse here and he said three times on the record were not clinical absolute there is no collapse so there was no collapse and the point is that in this on that issue there is no mention of collapse anywhere in any deposition or anybody talked about it and this is you have been dealt with i mission they say that this is looted by the design explosion and and that's based on right from the pioneer cases as more importantly the course of this day have rejected the concurrent causation there in the context of insurance liability she vanguard versus clarke as a matter of law one cause is covered by a policy it is not notify another unambiguously would cause insurance policy so in this case we have all these different exclusions all we need is one there's no exception to that and the stockman case has the same thing is that you can have you claim a collapse it still is good buys the buy the design is within you can't write you scooting out of the policy and that's when you go back to vanguard vs clerk a motor vehicle and his argument is well wait a minute i yell to shut the garage door that's a separate issue of negligence and the supreme court said no because you have an exclusion for the motor vehicle you can't go somewhere else  collapse we have to worry about it as an exact language that's been our policy and the court said that's all you need and in this case when we look at what the testimony was planned as brief as right then it the point is you have an exclusion that applies and it bars the coverage and we have three different grants for this and judge drain work through each one of them and how they apply and determine that  of those things then i would submit that that's a factual question for a jury to decide if one could be covered under this policy and it in one could be excluded under the policy number one number two point to say to just to it is they wear and tear those wear and tear but again the death as defined by the wear and tear means normal and clear water sitting on a roof because of a new improperly design car you take some of those risks and that's part of the insurance business so it's not normal normal news like it would be a hinge on a door that opened closes a one hundred times and falls apart that's normally use as opposed to getting the door down and breaking the hinge that's not normal use for a hint so there's a distinction there the other thing i didn't i don't believe that i've been doing any arguments i mean i'm arguing that this exclusion which is a design defect it's losing because of the ensuing loss clause allows for the damage to the building to be covered and if that the mr so will i obviously like your wear and tear argument but where was it in the district court in the briefs or anywhere and where is it on appeal in the briefs after the dust court specifically relied on i didn't find it maybe it's there and i'm missing it i don't know if i necessarily specifically talked about it because in but if you don't specifically talk about it in the district court then you don't specifically talk about it in front of us we call that forfeiture well that's because judge i don't believe it three big cases none of them had an ensuing wost clause that said this is barred from coverage but if x y and z happen then it isn't barred from coverage unlike this case and that's the distinguishing factor and results from a cover cause a loss they'll pay for it regardless of whether it's from wear and tear or from the period ration hidden or latent defect or any of the other things that mr schmidt talked