policy is designed to provide coverage for this type of the risk that squarely squarely within the concept of occurrence we've got definitions in this policy of both occurrence and property damage and under cypress point that's where we look you're talking about intended to cover the intent is drawn from that definitions how does the currents i e an accident as defined here not include now here's what i want you to focus on when you tell me what language in the policy indicates there is no coverage here we're all ready for work instead are is your argument based upon an exclusion because preparing for a replacement or a restoration here as a matter of fact as a matter of fact judge i'm not sure what they did with it was never part really yes it was never part of the clubs but i think it was a matter of fact it was the goods were sold at a loss some of the spark that may have been but that was not what we were focusing on in the case but if there were the last is they had to support they make a point not to be redundant of going through cases that distinguish between damage claimed as reader principle has been extended to the threshold issue of whether the risk was with ra's within the scope of the standard insuring clause in other words was the policy designed to cover this type will only one wheel was decided the standard c g l didn't cover it but that was in the seventies and the it was standard language was changed in eighty six was it not it was only changed wounded the removal of cover right now you have the policy here contains a euro work exception does it not yes and by richer and under cypress point they point out that the fact that there is a your work school lucian with a sigh contraception that the fact that that is included shows that they had to exclude that because otherwise it would have been included in the coverage isn't that correct absolutely no i think that's a problem for you now you say the fireman's was cited approvingly i look at the next next part of the opinion and they say us fire just what is it inside west point that says to us that what happened here is should not be considered to be an occurrence because what happened here cypress point is is very clear but there's a distinction between damage to your own work which is not within the coverage of the c g l policy a damage clause by your work which is understanding that that we don't to the extent there is a there is still a business risk exclusion of jersey right but it's not a currency issue of the fraud and it's a question of does the exclusion is there an occurrence yes that's as you as a court correctly points out that's that's really conceded so we're now into what whether or not having that rule of grantham initial coverage  had to be restored repaired or replaced and good and it didn't it doesn't apply because the language of it requires that the damage corn syrup must be one of the three things restored repaired for considerably less but they were able to sell it to you if you want to read you a six then based upon the behavior of the party that  if they had replaced the corn syrup that exclusion j six applies right again but what they did is i'm going to ask you what they did i'm saying if they if they have i'm giving you a hypothetical so by definition this didn't happen right if they had instead of covering at a loss selling it for what they could if they had replaced it with be conforming corn syrup then j six would apply to the why and the language is the language and it is me and it must be that that way it's a mandatory thing which is they have to they have to do obligation because your your your test as i understand it is you're asking us to look at what actually happened not whether it must have been replaced or should have been replaced you say look at the true facts the true facts in this case are it was not actually replace the one challenging or it is i'm having trouble seeing how we could interpret chase six to be a formidable exclusion based upon the post hoc behavior which is if it was commercially feasible to restore the repair of these chickens that that got sold then then maybe that impaired property exclusion when operate and w and that's that civilians that's the damaged mind much in the case where it and and one of the things that i think that that this makes makes clear is that we're the damage property certainly when you when you talk about where you've got damage you have this are also to use concept that is included in property damage and loss of use river you're underwater to deal with bad you're operating at a loss you're never going to want to provide that the good molasses after you've provided the bad molasses but the question is are you contractually obliged to do so why isn't that protest should we be looking to the contract between us a container and we're ready to see whether there's a provision that says if you don't provide us with conforming goods you must replace them with conforming could something is part of it but it's just that that's limited in language and i would go say that must means it is really the only way you can deal with it it is mandatory not s could or something that is it is optional were possible because there's any number of possible ways of doing of dealing with the situation if they hadn't hired passaic river and us a container had burned their own molasses then the business risk exclusion would apply here but because they are passaic river they are saved by the sub contractor exception to the business risk exclusion ask you a question what is the directions here had said and you pulled the syrup up to two hundred ten degrees and they did that and that happens to ruin the syrup in other words the bad or were bad i mean and that to me is a closer case as to whether that was an accident or not well and they had that to me seems like you know whether it was properly performed based upon instructions i'm trying to find the limits of occurrence here which i think is what i'm trying it's getting at the you know are we saying everything imaginable is covered roll well it's not that we're saying that everything imaginable was covered we again have on pack the definitions in the ensuring agreement and once you have that and again that's easy peasy after after cyprus point which is what i have i have language it says that excludes coverage for property damage to quote that particular part of any property that must be restored repaired or replaced because your work was incorrectly prefer on that if he did a bad job it didn't fulfill its contractual obligations to do that it's work it's work and doing that was bad but distinguished from a case where if you as a container slash or say rivers work was dangerous and they caused the fire and it burned down the property that would be covered because that's not the business that's excluded that's an accident that could foresee etc i think that when you're talking about your your new work can hurt other people's property and when it hurts other people's chicken the chicken and the chicken it is damaged then we determine whether an exclusion operates here and you know that that is is that you know again we get back to what is an occurrence mess up the product it's your problem not ours but you have to deal with that word must and why if we have a purchase order case and we don't have a written contract that obliges the breachin party to restore repair or replace or cover or some other you have similar language how can you satisfied that must require but particularly in light of the black letter law that says exclusion us to do but that's why we certified the question because we're right the new jersey supreme court we have great respect for their court and we tried to get them to answer the question but they  sort of had questions we often get direct responses and here we didn't get it right response so we will do the best we can we'll take