smith as opposed to a mere thing the underlying purpose behind it tended vehicle exclusion is to require some exercise of diligence on the part of jewelers and salespeople of when they vehicle and he was the reading some notes and waiting for his way the car was parked almost contiguous with the entrance to his garage at some point in time his attention was directed to some activity at the rear property is not necessarily it seems to me that someone is not concentrating on their vehicle at all times whether he was concentrating on this vehicle or not the fact is that the robbers in this case parties i mean there is something that occurs in every instance stoop and some robbers are a little bit more adventurous them than others but it seems to me in this case which is not too far from them like it is and which i disagree with just whenever it appears that all of the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken such knowledge was prevented by the use of fear force or fear in this case if you recall the testimony of mr smith both in his police statement that he actually hand wrote and in his examination and wrote that he knew immediately what was going on and had a fear for his life because he understood that it's a salesperson somewhat hair that had followed him somewhere new where he lived goods are stolen for example from and attended the ickle or for example a number of the cases where the sales people could not show when the goods were taken the mysterious disappearance i'm going to rebuttal good morning jerry sale for jews mutual the question is was mr smith actually on his vehicle at the time of the best because that's necessary in order for the card to be  attended the coverage is excluded yet this theft from an attendant vehicle the term actually on is not ambiguous there's no reason to construe it anyway but meaning actually in contact with the vehicle on what one looks to under washington law is the ordinary is the understanding the common understanding of the ordinary purchaser of insurance and the phrase actually on the car must mean contact with it not near it for instance as stated in our brief if you said put something on the car if somebody placed it near the car it wouldn't satisfy that it would be no one would understand that that would be on the card in that sense put problem yes so i think that would still work if the briefcase was actually on the car the briefcase was actually on the car i don't think that can be misconstrued in the ordinary parlance for the briefcase was near the car or the briefcase was just outside the car but in proximity to so you must take the language in context and i think in context it it clearly means that now now after lane judge posner and in his opinion seems to has done a very strange job of interpretation of a policy looking for the purposes and then disregarding the language in the policy as it meets is his interpretation of what the purposes are in fact he came up with the idea in that opinion that if you lost things in the trunk that would be sufficient for the purpose of the stacking and yet we know from all the cases that we see that when things are locked in the trunk and somebody breaks the window and opens the trunk and either take the car or takes the things from the trunk that exactly meets the risk in this case so his reasoning is not perfect in that regard i think it is helpful in some ways to understand what's trying to be affected here but it's clear and the cases except for e m i are essentially clear on that sometimes up on must mean in contact decision actually upon the vehicle is the strange phrase that isn't due to the everyday language whereas actually on the vehicle it is and therefore you get more of a problem of ambiguity in the word upon  of the insurance companies said was actually if the insurance companies said near this would be an entirely different policy and there would be much different question about what is near and you can see the slippery slope slope starts to go that direction coverage available by the way i believe that i believe it is you can get coverage in fact this policy indicates that you can get coverage for an under ten to car i can't remember what phrase it is but there's policy to determine whether the car was attended and in this case it wasn't i would point out very briefly the reasons why i think the e m i e m i case is not applicable and i would point out that that's a four three decision which is i believe correctly an outlier but number one is that the word upon is different as we just discussed number two that this decision depends very much and you can see this from a careful reading of that case of offense very much upon the reasonable expectations doctrine which is accepted in california is not accepted in washington under washington the explicit expectations of the insured are measured only in regard to the actual language of the policy in regard to expectations of coverage different from the words in the policy and so that's a very very much different point of the third point is and this was raised in mr king's argument and that is time and in our case as you pointed out there was he was not attending to the vehicle now he was close to it but he was not attending to what under these facts by the way what we do know is that he left the vehicle a couple of times and we don't actually know when the perpetrators approached the vehicle whether it was when he had gone to the house or when he was in fact standing next to the car and all of those things really do not need to be delved into because what we know the he was not actually on the car at the time without going briefly to the question of robbery this exclusion applies to theft and that as even stated in  the brief of the appellant that is an element of robbery robbery is a particular kind of theft there is no reason to qualify theft in this regard is no reason to say undefined word i would be hard pressed and indeed in the j m p cases maryland that court was hard pressed to believe that someone a reasonable insured would believe that they had to be sitting on their car that is sitting on the truck with the hood is argued by jewellers in their breathe in order for the exclusion of the exception to the exclusion apply and which to attend a car you have to be in it or you literally have to be on