boil down minor ducks in just indicate that there are a couple issues in this case caradoc structures contends that it is an additional insured under policy issued by the of hell the north american capacity insurance so for them it's an a c question here is should the twenty ten endorsement that was specifically prepared for colorado structures be applied or should terms from a blanket endorsement that was included in the policy without regard to colorado structure subcontract with and he sees name insured should the terms of that blanket endorsement teeth engrafted into the twenty ten indorsement district court found that the blank indorsement included  other than the provision that it applies to losses arising from the liability i'm sorry losses arising from the ongoing operations of the named insurance so it would cover all of those ongoing operations date that the additional insured was added to from basic underwriting concepts how could they possibly have underwritten it for the amount that they did without looking at the terms of that accident couldn't it wouldn't have to be a mistake under your not at all your honor not at all there's no evidence in the record on that but there is evidence that a premium of six hundred twenty thousand dollars was paid for this policy by the name insur civil code section twenty seven seventy four specifically allow indorsement such as this to be issued after the accident happened because the liability is still contingent they don't know if colorado structure's is going to get sued they don't know what the liability might be the liability is still contingent that's true of any insurance policy so you don't know when the m what's going to happen that's correct in the third party context in particular is different from a first party contacts certainly in the california cases recognize that if your house burns down you can go out and buy an insurance policy to pay you for your house however perfectly acceptable if the carrier is willing to do it if there's an accident you buy a liability policy and then suit is filed later and terms of the policy are satisfied they can cover that that potential loss lost both defense fees and indemnity so the first and third party contacts the distinction is very important here this is a third party case they should have a policy  coverage in existence and refers to certain policies and said the mere existence of this certificate does not alter or amend those policies that's correct if you don't have that made it much clearer today right but then if you read down at the bottom here time but if you look at paragraph b it's clearly that they're talking about a certificate they're talking about and insured who's talking about an additional insured was added by way of a certificate pursuant to paragraph a of the plate indorsement there's no reason th carrier couldn't issue a specific twenty thousand indorsement to colorado structures of forty different coverage than what was under the blank indorsement there are simply different coverages and that's clear one more thing on the certificate which i think clearly establishes what the ok one year that was the policy term july one to july one so clearly it was the intent that the duration of that additional insured indorsement the twenty ten indorsement was going to be one year ok another commercial context issue i talked about the premium why they certainly were willing to do this based on the premium they want to keep their insured happy what happens to based on the tactic that they're following here an any see what it is doing is it has issued the twenty ten endorsement instead faction of its insurance contractual obligations to the conditional insurer pull the rug out from its name sure and leaving it liable for in happens all the time you don't look at when something was mailed you know look when something was prepared you look at the language and in retrospect your clients in the light of the subs on the job the evidence of assurance in retrospect you could make that argument which you don't know what the relationship is because there's no evidence on that's the risk they run it's a potential risk they run but if my client has hired and i'm running out of time i do want to see a couple minutes of like quiet as a long standing relationship with the customer practice in history well then yeah they're going to let you know they want to maintain that relationship we're going to lead them on there they're going to get the endorsement they were promised got the endorsement they were promised with the coverage they were promised they get sued they tender it and suddenly the rug gets pulled out from under all of them by the carrier who is trying to grab the provisions from a different indorsement which was never sent to us by the way we were sent a certificate of twenty ten indorsement to fit says coverage per attach indorsement duration one year we were never said the commercial context each general contractor developer tries to protect itself in two ways one is by an indemnity provision in the contract as in this case the second is by obtaining insurance for itself on the sub contractors policies as was attempted in this case the second point is that for the court to find in the palace favor it would have to do no california court has ever done outside of a completed operations coverage analysis and that would be to find coverage before it is requested or issued the exception for that in completed operations coverage is completely sensible and i think discussed at some length by the trial court below the nature of completed operations coverage is that it deals with completed operations which under the statute over opposed in california can be as many as ten years in the past the named insured not by the additional insured on this record means nothing other than it costs a lot to get insurance in california and that's finally addressed commercial context has something to do with construction defect litigation which falls under completed operations analysis which has led to in the context of the montrose case and cases of continuing and progressive loss of very  difficult set of problems that have been addressed by the court about when coverage is triggered and when it's covered none of those questions have ever applied in the context of someone falling down getting hurt the classic personal and frankly i think that was put there to deal with the issue of construction defect progressive loss completed operations it is simple but it applies equally here and i think in addition that the california law we cited in the briefing guardian the need for a contingency means that you don't have your ass in it first and get your insurance back and and that was the second part of your first question and why it would be wrong under california law to do that and it different climate there are no named additional insurance in the policy the way this policy is set up this you become under endorsement eleven an additional insured if a certificate is issued an approved by the company and at the time that says these people are all still additional insurance or they may be needed this general named insured cases where folks have you know ongoing relationships with companies or they have subsidiaries that sort of thing but actually you know in this case what you have is a world where the construction contract is signed and the sub contractor is required to provide it usually therefore and in this case is supposed to provide before he goes on the job a proof of insurance and a proof of additional short status for the developer and in this contract the developer also provided itself the option that if it allowed the folks on the job and they didn't have such a certificate it could go out and procure insurance at  subcontractors cost council talking about was talking about i believe the certificate of insurance which is c s i and names this particular job at the bottom of the certificate and if you can correctly johnson and that's where they're contending it for all evidence was considered correct yes and that was exhibit two her deposition which consists of the first page of the certificate the second of the endorsement and her testimony regarding that is in the record one fifty three and one fifty four for a condensed transcript and that shows quite clear only that it was issued and i think again i would simply point to the can obtain an adjudication on behalf of their insurance carrier that the nic policy is primary that is governed by principles of cobol contribution and by the terms of the policies and of course the insurance company that insurance companies not hear that policy is not here and i would think it would be improper to do so rule as to the issue of the additional insured or something of that simply as i think the law of the state of california read mr johnson's testimony she testified it was her understanding that the endorsement was the twenty town indorsement was in effect for the entire one year policy period so you're going to look at her testimony you ought to look at what her understanding is the name sure it was with respect to that endorsement and that's of eggs or so record one fifty four and page one fifty eight she said it is going to mean that the additional insured was an additional insured during the entire career of the policy yeah they were an additional insured for life for risk for occurrences during the entire policy term as as we've discussed there's nothing that prevents the carrier from issuing a twenty ten indorsement specifically drafted with respect to the intent of the parties that was your indorsement was drafted specifically for my client with respect to the intent of the parties meaning that it takes precedence over the blanket indorsement it's a basic principle of insurance policy in contract interpretations ok so i guess i'll submit with that