presents a basic legal question and a marine insurance and the basic legal question is is the owner the identity of the owner of the vessel in the application nikitin entered into a new agreement with the trauma designated him as charter requiring him to post on the mast of the vessel that he was the charter and not the owner and then later on he got a visit no after  december december two thousand got a visit from the owner saying hey that you're trashing my boat on the sign isn't posted up there i'm the owner you're just a charger and then he called the conversation that's what the court found later on he signed a new agreement he never informed the agent in a later conversation of that new agreement and the new agreement is a bearable charter and it's  application the signed application didn't come until january eighth two thousand and one the timeline is very important and during the tween the first conversation the second conversation and the signed application the bearable charter was executed and subjective belief of the underwriter that counts not the subjective belief of the person applying for insurance and that's what this court has also evidence in the record of a bareboat charter mr underwriter if you had known this was a bearable charter wouldn't you have been insured anyway in fact the only evidence is if you had been told as a verbal charter the would have been no we only ensure owners and he testified as to what their policies were with respect to that and it's clear if it's in the application is material if the owner is required to be on the applications material well everything in the app you know you're not making the argument that everything in the application is that is in the record  citation for the answer to one question the answer the answer is if i why i want to put put in there so you can see it on page six or seven of my my reply brief if he has a variable charter he's clearly not the owner i ask company that's why they have the bank winder on the application the title company says we hold the title you're the registered owner when you finish paying it off we'll give you the title under storm approaches contracts like mostly they would do that if they have all the information the point here is the point here is the long the policy was issued after a signed declaration after a signed application is made we have a telephone conversation of december one thousand nine hundred nine and then the requirement is to sign that application to make sure if anything's changed to fix it and this court has held on to the marine insurance code of california section one thousand eight hundred which by the way the other side did not try to distinguish did not mention and no one of the other side regardless regardless of intent and mr mccain was obligated when he said when he has anything changed after you've signed from print the first conversation and before he signed that application had signed a bearable charter he'd just been visited by the owner a few days previous you're supposed to have on your master's sign that you're not the owner he was obligated to volunteer that information of your clickable law california section one hundred and the other side doesn't even talk about seeing our acting face because they can't distinguish and they can't distinguish it they can't they have to this court follows after can't distinguish that now even if not ask the timeline is important the time line is important because you have a first telephone call you have a signed bareboat charter you have a visit only december twenty nine and i would call the court's attention it is an important document in the record exe exit record one eighteen where of the letter was written to mr keating so you don't own the boat after the visit under some are twenty nine and then he calls the u s again on january fifth over a year later from that first conversation and finally signs for the first time the application now but u s never saw the barrel charter and clearly clearly i think the court got the lower court got the law wrong because in the findings of fact they found on every record page one twenty two and also one twenty five but us servers that representative never asked to see whatever document any existed never asked who was the title the registered owner never asked to see a copy of the title and then had a duty to disclose that information even if not ask clearly there the district court was putting the duty of inquiry on to the insurer and that is what led to the two in my view the honest erroneous on the whole exact truth from their applicant who signs that list and with self as the only owner and now you have a loss you have this total stranger you think total stranger to the both total strangers of the contract coming record seventy five to page seventy nine and also in the transcript between pages one seventy eight and one eighty one and that ruling was barman's refused to produce its manual that would show what the the company guidelines were for determining who went on areas of principle question in this case the court said well you didn't produce your ear guidelines therefore the person that you want to testify who was the head of underwriting he can testify as to what he would have done if he was underwriting that policy he may not testify as to overall cover of company policy and he can't testify as to what the guidelines say harmon's could have produced the actual underwriters who were involved in the two applications here they did not produce those people there were also two sales reps who took the information example of what an underwriter might do under these circumstances but mr nolan's testimony has no weight above that of any other underwriter at the company who was not eight hundred applying here and we don't have a quorum with that but in fact all of the california statutory law that's relevant applies here and we in particular would point the court to the sections of the harbor navigation scope that talk about who is an owner and it says that when you have an installment sale contract and somebody is going to receive the boat at the end of the lease period for  nothing or a nominal payment then they are the owner and the less or is not the owner so what mr mckee to put on that application was very much in line with california law it's also in line with federal law having to do with fair vote charters it very much traffic that so there was no misrepresentation and that seems to be the underlying assumption here it's simply not true now m that he told the representative he was buying it over time from a private party and the representative said to him well then we consider you the owner so when he got the application prepared  when you have a situation where you tell the representative everything that's going on buying it over time he provides a survey that shows that the wolves are the owners of this vessel he gives them all the information he said i don't remember if the issue of title came up or not if they asked me i would have told them honestly but the court should keep in mind that in these maritime cases the title is not such  high concept art is the registration it's like your d m v the registration of your car it's no there's no special certificate that you have title so it's not surprising that refinance because he had fallen behind and makes a big deal about this one incident that happened where mr de wolfe was angry because mr mckeon had fallen behind in its payments that period he had to pay and there was a five dollar option at the end so you could say five dollars was not an obligation but otherwise he had to pay it of obligated that's right and that the wolves had already bearable chart that is our point your honor you can slap whatever name you want on it but what it really was and under the california use the commercial code which is referenced in this court's intercooler decision which i think is very important this court said that a provision for purchase at the end of a charter for no additional consideration or for nominal consideration renders the agreement a security instrument as a matter of law and that this really was that's what the reality of it was and you could slap any title you want on it but it was no different than the original installment sale contract it was just a different mechanism and everybody testified that the reason that this other mechanism amends getting a copy of either the contract installment sale contract or the bare charter and he said that that kind of policy could have been written up with m and the do wolf's as an additional insured and he also testified at the following page to sixty three that additional when you add a last payee that doesn't affect the premium so where is the materiality here you know mr mckinnon was the one who was using that boat that the wolves had nothing to do with that both they were docked three feet away for most of the period of these leases and that the wolfs never touched in fact they said in the record that you know the bogus years now you know he offered owed you one take it personal every once in a while and he face said no it's your boat now so that's what all the way around it and i find it very difficult to believe and i would cite the court cases in our brief the st paul case the own case the california reclamation case they aren't involve marine insurance they all aerial you can't use that and that that scenario i think it's far more reasonable to assume that the california courts would apply a stop will cross the border when an insured gives all the information they rely on the insurance representative to give them an accurate application they sign it the representative said we consider you an owner of the application says you're the owner of the insurer can't come around later and say ha ha you know our personnel put it down wrong and told you wrong and now you've lost your insurance and you can't be covered you know i would point the court to i only go by what the agreement says your honor in this agreement the underwriters never saw the agreement says you pay a monthly charter hire once you pay the for the agreed amount of months then you have an option to purchase f ive dollars he was not required to pay pay this vessel off he could have stopped any time and if you wanted to buy a throw he had to pay all of those payments and the option to purchase so it's a  says the point the point here is the insurance company was never told about this they were never told you didn't hold the title they were never told someone else was illegal or never told someone else's pain all the taxes it is appropriate to sue the court i do not believe that it is appropriate to produce all these manuals today we have them in court we have them they were there so the ruling will be as it was before when you opposed the motion in l difference between thank you can't it's not proper to introduce them now because you're tardy and it's not appropriate to introduce them now because they're irrelevant dealt with two different things i understand i understand that and i don't think she was saying it was tar if i can if i can give the court's ruling as she reiterated judge wilson reiterated her ruling as still the ruling will stand as it was i will allow mr nolan to testify as he was beginning to his experience what he does and how it is done i will allow that and as an example of how it is done in the company we don't know and perhaps never will know whether it was done that way here but we will know how he says it should have been done that verges into the manual i recognise that but i'm not allowed to manage evidence at this time so you can't rely on the manual as an explanation for these things i will allow mr nolan to testify as to his experience and what happens in the company and she allowed that testimony and when he started talking about policy in that testimony she overruled those objections or they those objections so his testimony is we don't ensure bareboat charter of this is the evidence was absolutely relevant and material when you when you the law does not allow they were we deemed it was appropriate to have the one who is who runs the show there who gives all the directions and ultimately makes the decisions to testify he have the most knowledge people who actually we made the decision on title what else would they have testified to well if he says he's the owner and we believe him then we insure him that's why the insured is obligated under the law to give the whole exact truth and you didn't hear