from the federal district court in denver the case was a case brought under an insurance policy whereby the hassan's had been insured by a i agree with called a private collection see private collection policy was in force there are certain matters that are certainly not disputed by parse the parties do not dispute that there was insurance in place issued by a i g which cover private collections including collections of war the parties do not dispute that the wine coverage was for wine which was only anywhere in the world and commenced up the time that the wine was acquired whether it was in place someplace or in transit the parties it's become a thread title to it essentially is that well the policy actually requires that the and what happened in this case is there had been a course of dealing between the hassan's dr hassan being something of a sissy an audible warning and he had been collecting for decades he had been dealing with this particular merchant which was called premier crew since two thousand and one in that period of time a course of dealing had been developed between the part of those under which dr hassan would place orders those orders were paid in full at the time the order was a place to title would pass to the hassan's as the title as the order was placed and civically the winds would be delivered over a period of time  quickly in fact with some regularity substantially after the waters were placed sometimes the winds would be in stock a premier crew that is in the warehouse we were in the retail facility in berkeley california group right that is correct now is it the case that the signs actually bought the wine or bought and other words paid the money that should be if they were paying say i'm buying this wine so in this wine comes available i you owe me that bottle of wine or i heard the song language to the fact they were buying a right true bottom line which one wasn't there both so what happened is sometimes when the husain's purchased the wine the wine would be in the inventory if you will in stock in berkeley either in the retail facility or in the warehouse facility on the other occasions premier crew acting as agent sons who are already purchased the warning from the from premier prove premier crew would in turn place warders with one recent caveat throughout the world i got it but in the latter scenario is not a situation where antoine's absolutely correct ok because the order was paid for in full when the order was placed and so at that point time printer crew would be acting as a just for the sons placing the orders with wineries that they weren't already in stock now what happened in this particular case was premier proof while for relief under chapter seven of the federal bankruptcy code in california berkeley in january of two thousand and sixteen at that point in time the  hassan's had yet to have delivered to them some two thousand four hundred forty eight bottles of wine a claim was filed in the bankruptcy proceedings by the his sons on account of their purchase price the amount that they had paid premier cr in june of two thousand and sixteen at that point in time suit was brought in the federal just in state court removed to the federal district court judge morse courtroom like let me just ask you a question about that  was there ever a determination made as to the assigned domicile either by the district court or boss and representations that were made a connection with the district or living asian so that it is clear to us that the district  what is it what is it you want to tell us as a consequence of that so let me be a little less glib about it but ok i want to educate why she directed the allegations in the complaint in the denver district court with the hassan's were residents of the state of colorado and the allegation were that they were residents of the state of colorado and they are part time residents in the state of nevada as should prevail as a matter of the wall and judge moore looked at it from a two perspectives he said number one the question is do the hassan's own or possess the wine and two was there in the terms of the policy was there a direct loss or damage to the one interestingly judge moore for reasons which are not it clear from the order itself goes on to say and it seems sort of the anomaly frankly judge moore made  existence has suffered a distinct from one of the mobile or physical alteration so present that are not clear judge moore in his summary judgment order seems to believe that in order for the plaintiffs to about deliveries that were supposed to be in november and december of two thousand and sixteen is that a typo should not be two thousand and fifteen it is not a declared bankruptcy ten months after bankruptcy they're talking about deliveries of win it's up to get it all to but what you're not claiming that you can we cover on the policy just on the basis of being victims of a ponzi s where wine was and bought did you paid for or that the same bottle of wine was sold to several different people are you are you claiming that's a loss or is it something else that you're seeking so  covery for because that's not clear to me and i apologize for that for the ambiguity what we're saying here is not that if money was given to the provider group and prove your proof put it in his pocket when it did a world tour some trustee intern tory or any of those bottles bottles you're claiming were lost and that you're entitled to recover from yes how what's the evidence that any of those bottles were about the chapter seven trustee does an indian tory in january of two thousand and sixteen he discovers two things prior to the trustee assuming control of the premises some of the bottles had been physically set aside earmarked  set aside as the hassan's bottles that process was underway when the when the bankruptcy filing occur that process ceased because the trustee assume control of the  the trustee conducted the inventory the trustee noted that the process was underway that some of the bottles at the site as belonging to the signs were being earmarked for the signs there was a warehouse of seventy nine thousand bottles with respect to the bottles that were in the warehouse the bottles that were in the warehouse dramatically overlapped with what the signs that were in other words well they but they ordered three bottles of  five whatever vineyard and there were some bottles like that in the in the warehouse but the trustee for the most part couldn't a dent apply those bottles as being ordered for a particular facts are and what you're claiming so please continue but thank you so there is a correspondence between what the house sons had ordered and what is found in the inventory that goes to the issue only in the sense that they ordered the certain year from a certain vineyard of a certain type and there are some bottles of that type in the warehouse it's up to do you mean by correspondence that is what i mean and that we're in the process of being set aside that was halted when the back of c began so there is a correspondence in that sense of the term between what the hassan's order and what is found in the inventory of the trustee was looking at the records of the retailer suspect but also comparing that to the records to see that could be identified with and do you have any evidence that the trust the was in correct or are you saying that even if the trustee is correct about how the identify but it could and said some of these are his sons great bloke or not but what's the evidence that the trustee was wrong in that regard we're not saying that the trustee is wrong that's an issue of the ownership remember the  trial court said there's no evidence of that was there is a was somebody has lost something because the bottles are not delivered to this igniters whether it's lost money or lost bottles these are all so good so you have to don't apply some bottles that were lost and all you're saying is they always delivered sometimes late you're director david is totally consistent with being victims of a ponzi scheme so i'm interesting i'm interested in what evidence you have to specific bottles that were done applied to this that have disappeared in some way the evidence is and i apologize for repeating but the evidence  the idea that fox and premier crew always delivered to your client when they placed an order and i mean so do you get to the idea that the bottles that you're talking about are yours we have to first buy into the idea that fox in premier crew acted in conformance with the past practice yes ok and can map for zero six presumptions stand  when you have express under oath statement by fox saying that he duped your client that they didn't give the bottles while let's be careful about that stated that was a part of a a economics if that's all that happened then fox and the and his cronies said premier who we'd never purchased paid models they didn't purchase bottles there's a want some bottles out there there's tons of bottles out there the question is what new ship ugly scheme you have to start you have to be taking care of earlier purchasers were earlier and go through so of course they had bottles they get later and later in delivery because they've got segregated bottles in the bankruptcy stipulation which is entered into eventual year by dr hassan his wife and that stipulation indicates that where there are bottles that could be segregated as to a specific person or a purchaser that that individual could purchase from the state that one for twenty percent of what he paid for and plus tax that was done here with respect to some of the bottles the rest of the bottles the rest of the seventy eight thousand bottles that were actually in the story in california were the subject matter of a class action and then an objection by dr assad and then eventually agreement to be bound by and opting into if you will the class and the stipulation so the bottles at issue here are not do include the box that he purchased subject to that segregation correct or are ok these bottles are of two tops the first is are bottles that were actually in the in among the seventy eight thousand that were actually physically seventy thousand bottles and then they were treated as general creditors and they were given them the attempt made to determine if those seventy eight thousand bottles could be attributed to me through the purchase or that was part of a leave of opponent here so the bottom line is that there were sung to the trustee determine were clearly segregated out to be the songs allowed them to purchase them then there would be this whole warehouse full of wine and was at least as far as the trustees concerned sold that why they have no ownership interest in that one with respect to the wine futures i mean those were all about what's the best way if them are role you know possibility that they would never be received there any evidence that that happened because that's not that several months after the settlement there's no indication whatsoever and that completely speculative on the part of dr on which are uncorroborated there's no purchase orders there's no anything there's no indication from any i think they're called the lucy hans that are the people that are the go between between fox and friends to get wine from the expensive ones in the the issue of ownership he just said there is no evidence no evidence of demonstrably all physical alteration of wind which is what this policy brought a cover for it was that it's a collections policy that w you never get we didn't have it but it's just more right that you would have to have some alteration to it or i mean because i mean to use to use it adversary counsel point why couldn't you have it and it be lost well you put you why in other words if they could trace that line to themselves if that wind had been lost would you still be denying them cover if it was actually in their possession no no not in their possession because i thought the policy covered the wind wherever the they would not have to have had damage or alteration to it if that wind was lost yes but i think the step that i would take before i got to that point was did they own it yes b and i'm just trying to explore did moore's rationale was ownership wasn't part of his rationale correct and so it seems to me a piece of his rationale that is missing is the last aspect we have to restrain ownership issue but if they did claim that they did that wine out there was could be dead applied to me and that wind was lost ok then the question would become did they own it in that sort of but i would have to i want to make this point in that was a point that was issue of in transit was only released you know in one place in connection with their claim that somehow they were duped into or that they were there that they were coerced but part of the issue about buying the policy in the first place was that had this covered the policy doesn't have that coverage more found the policy was on them big us and there's nothing in the policy about  that i mean but that get that gets back to you know sort of where you own it right and it is world wide policy so if he owns it on the ship while it's being transported when it blows up presumably there's coverage i mean i'm not i'm not see any properly raised the in transit idea i'm not trying to box you in on not but it just seems a little bit unfair to say that think i don't believe that there's going to be two issues one is what's the legal standard and second what's the evidence here and i'd like to distinguish between those two because i understood they are going to have is if they had purchased a bottle of wine come from this vineyard in france and it was purchased for them it could be a democrat for them and that and they could show that but something is happy because it didn't show up at the at the warehouse then and the people in france say you know we we ship that the two sides disagree on what the policy covers it's a factual matter yes and they're saying there are bottles that were dead if i do this we don't know what happened maybe something happened on the way t warehouse maybe in the warehouse they got misplaced and sent to the wrong person or so on or something like that that i think there's a pretty good argument that when the facts they could say that's my except for the two thousand four hundred forty eight bottles that were delivered so i don't know how or what the evidence what the evidence will prove even if that were taken this doesn't i don't