circuit are unmonitored to get american and chen for the court is now letting god save the united states and this honorable court all right good morning everyone and welcome to the october session of the th circuit in judge quite a bomb and i in particular want to welcome judge gallagher and appreciate you serving with us this morning and so w sentence of paragraph for you could be construed as a question of law what about the st sentence of paragraph four what words i don't have in front of you when he comes back out yeah i'll be glad to raise this case involves a regard to that is is that a question of fact or lall and the nd question would be you know is it true is it correct it seems to me those are separate issues i think i understand both arguments but you agree just generally with what i said that those are two separate questions that we have to look at her and ensures an interest in south carolina is a question of law just like citizenship or policy not contractual interpretation except a right the question is is it an interest in south court needs to overturn that aspect of the hold as i don't believe under the factual scenario presented and under the under who all present in that it is in fact a policy  question i mean if you it what if really it only a question of whether you're relieved from know we i think address that question and yeah the focus on the chassis s apre shape that argument that may make that you know like the russell case for example  but is that the only way to look at it i mean there is a it there is a location in charleston and it is at least part of the part of the interest in insured the management of the locations one of which is physically in charleston does that differentiate this case from russell for example and here's why obama's talking about earlier though wasn't travelers in effect deprived of the opportunity to take discovery into these issues of whether interest in that carolina were insured or not i don't know not necessarily i mean i don't coming down basically the president as a person what have i been buying because that's my whole business model if you put this inscription in this policy doesn't cover me so i'm that that's where the trouble was i mean this is this coverage and appreciate the concerns but does that does that create i mean it still at the point we're in is a reservation of right situation and how all right mr davis thank you yawner good morning as has already been alluded to this case has been going on for quite some time a lot has been written many many pages but i would submit that  really what it all boils down to is the issues or pretty straightforward and simple as after all the briefing i think this pressure's done a good job of laying out what the issues are enough i'll take one of the time the st one is whether or not there was a judicial admission i would point out that you know there's wall that says that  simple mistake if a clerical error something like that can be corrected but here it's really unequivocal and unequivocal statement that south carolina law governs and even sides to the south carolina statute concerning the choice of walls so we would submit that there was no mistake here and that if there was ever a judicial admission this is it the country which is true the cases that talk about in the choice of one context the fact that vehicles or transients i submit are an applicable to this situation  because the trailer in question was was not transit at the time of the accident it was disabled and was being repaired and it was in a facility in charleston and it's i think it's important point out that flexi ban is kind of where in more than one hat here because they were also the administrator of this pool whereby trailers were shared and so these operations with regard to the poor charleston were conducted out of charleston and so there is a connection to south carolina which was justified as the application of south  think it you know maybe certainly if there's no judicial admission this would be a question maybe it would be a question on whether to relieve flexi of it of admission if there was one but some trying to understand this location in charleston what's the connection of the location in charleston to the claim here did was the injury to the independent contractor who was doing the work you know did that happen at that location or did he pick it up from that location and and is that in the record it at least it is in the record yo so that the various trucking companies can share them and this particular one had the problem mechanical problem and so a local repairman went out to repair not only of the clarity of the admission in the complaint but it's reference to the south carolina statute and the connection to south carolina that i just described that regardless of the judicial admission south  anyway secondly you know new jersey really has no real contact with this dispute  it the incident happened in south carolina we're talking about the performance of the contract that's what's at issue so again we strenuously submit this after a long govern actual conflict of before of it's appropriate that counsel withdraw and i would submit that as is stated in the breeze there's no law to that effect in south carolina have some federal cases as a reference to that address that but but it is true that to my knowledge there's no case that specifically indicates carolina would profess a little confidence in the integrity of the members of south carolina more and i think that's they are untrue statement it's well known among the defense bar here that when defending and ensured that the insured is your client we certainly have struck very young associates to that effect and that there's a duty to put that client's interest above the insurance companies and if there is a conflict for the for example if information is learned that could jeopardize coverage then that is not to be revealed to the insurance company  so i think that's a strong statement from that case but certainly have to admit that there's nothing i'm aware of that's on point from a south carolina  certainly they reserve their rights but i would point out that although this exclusion gee was referenced in one of the reservation rights letters travers never to not coverage based on exclusion  of did what it was supposed to do they reserve the rights they hired a very good lawyer who was defending the case of there that were was asked to do something fairly broad provision under the contract that were being looked at here you are not i agree that it is a broad exclusion but would i guess my response to that would be that oh it is a boy exclusion all that happened is that the insurance company travers put the insured or the additional insured on notice of it but they never never did not coverage on that basis they refuse to do that his response was that he would be happy but that the insurance company would not pay him to do because his job according to what so as far as we're concerned a situation where they made their b apparent to me and perhaps i need to look through more closely what you've decided is not is readily apparent to me that they were quote instructed to take it out but regardless m said that his client did not rely on exclusion gee to deny coverage what what's your response to that my response that is is i think not so what a loser i mean i  have i have a struggle to believe that after two or three years of being involved in this case suddenly one day they just woke up and went up the middle spot to just throw this out there i mean if this point ok thank you thank you