judgment the first point i think that is most relevant is what the factual record was before the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to my client mr case we can only reach for record viewed in the light most favorable to my client would say that there would be cracks on both the caps and the actual stone work itself and if you look at he has excerpts of record there's photos that are twenty four to seventy but the record to be fair is not very clear because we have a deposition and we have a declaration so i think you have to assume that it was cracks on both the stone cap and the stone work itself which are two different items i think the second thing that the jury could conclude is that important mr k t believe those cracks may have been caused by a third party an impact it's unclear what that was but importantly viewing the evidence and a light most  i think it does your honor because what essentially we're looking at is this question was mr katie's work negligent and that negligence caused damage to the work of others which m point is he's buying insurance of the point he knows that might be a claim because look there's namond in this thing important i think this gets to the whole holden's case and there we have to look at i would suggest i think that where the  what property damage the property damages the seeking insurance for and this commercial general policy does not cover damage to his own work it's the work of others other trades in this case and the record is clear on this  the framing and the and the actual would pillars upon which mr k t put his don't work in other words there has to be evidence that he knew of that property damage based on looking at the policy which and you think the cracks don't put them on notice for i don't believe in this record language they will it doesn't because there's no evidence that those cracks in this record cause damage to the property for which he's now seeking coverage that's the work of the other importantly there's no evidence in the record for example that actually water got in there and this is three months before the policy was purchased in addition there's two types of work and the record is clear to us they're the stone pillars themselves which if you look at the record he says he saw some of those that had some cracks in september and then there's the stone on the buildings themselves and the record is clear he never saw prior to purchasing the content policy and he cracks on the stone that was placed on the buildings and so therefore i think again the entire claim for all the damage underneath the stone pillars and the damage underneath the stone the buildings we should be allowed to proceed against mitt continent but again there's loss was substantially likely to occur when it purchased the policy again based on the record including mr katie's declaration i believe there's a real issue of material facts in the light most favorable to mr t about whether or not he knew it was going to be a loss of what occurred there's no evidence in the record that there was any of this resulting property damage either on the stone pillars where he did see cracks or on the stone facade of the buildings that if there's cracks in the cap and in the masonry that there could be more secure that would seep in and get into the underlying structure and pose were  that once he became of masonry cracks which would be his responsibility under the policies not insured for cracks in his own craftsmanship is that right yes i think if you look at the your work portion of the policy it says he cannot obtain coverage for defects or damage to his own work ok so if he caused the cracks it was his negligence or whatever in causing the cracks you don't think it would be reasonably foreseeable that if water settled like snow on the caps and would drip down and work its way in that there could be ultimately dry rot or water damage i think it could be but again we have to look at the record here where he stated clearly that there was three at the time of the september partial walk through he thought that there were some cracks and he thought there were three possible causes settling up the posts more impact of some third party and more with the third was that shrinkage of the would pose settling or shrinkage would experience and shrinks as it knew would ages i think that's what he said but in terms of what he would reasonably expected to flow no pun intended from you in from the steam and collection of water that's normally present in a shower or sink or why wouldn't the installation negligent installation of those fixtures or the tiling or whatever you have there allowed for sea of way allowed moisture to get into the walls and create the damage why wouldn't that be reasonably foreseeable know the property damage the mis installation i think again it comes down to and this was a discussion in the valley forge case we cited there is a difference between the insured knowing of a defect in its work and here i don't even think we can say that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to mr k t he was aware of his defect causing those cracks it may have been a third party there's a difference between a defect and knowledge of the resulting damage and i think you have to have actual knowledge of the resulting damage and if you look at the cases both in oregon and the few that have touched on the subject and elsewhere it also is likely that oregon courts would adopt the standard insured might actually know and expect that they're going to get sued if you look at all the cases cited by mid continent to support their position there is a faction the facts are quite different in those cases the insured actually in some cases had no i think if you look at the actual policy wings he says no bodily injury or property damage i think it has to be the property damage for which you're seeking recovery made cotton and i think maybe perfectly obvious and that's what happened here nothing goes on for you it may be perfectly obvious there are cracks and it was perfectly obvious or cracks the issue is the record says he believed viewing it in his favor there was caused by a third party he would is a separate issue if you think this is a damage situation it doesn't matter who you think you might not be liable in the eyes i mean let's say in fact his situation had been just slightly different obvious actual damage in there does he say well i don't think this is this is my responsibility i think this would have been caused by the competence of you know somebody else you wouldn't be but i also think a large project like this where there is distinct areas of work such as pillars versus the stone on the facade there's a different issue if you take your example if you saw that the stone on the pillars situation he would be part because that damage of the work of others would be the property damage he seeks even if he says but i didn't cause the cracks i am really pretty sure that the  debating is the question is how likely it was a damage would occur i would say it was whether he knew it's not likely it's whether he had a reasonable likely understanding and knew that there was going that there was actually property damage at the type you purchase insurance what he saw over cracks in his own part in some areas not the entire area ok thank you very much what is under the terms of your eighty eight which is the general liability section one coverages and occurred then any continuation change or resumption of such known property and adding no property damage during or after the policy will be deemed to have been known prior so it seems to me there are two acts of property damage in this case one is the cracks and then second is the facts of water or whatever arguably being caused by the cracks but that's a different property damage and if the policy requires that he knew the claimed property damage because these issues he's not seeking liability coverage for the first property damage that is the cracks that he may or may not have cause what's the evidence that he knew of the underlying property damage on this record the only property damage that focal point knew of that when at the time they purchased the policy was the crux to the masonry there have looked at this exact policy language and very similar fox there's the trinity universal case that we cited from the western district of washington and in that case there were cracks in the stucco that the insured contractor had applied to the building water penetration occurred cause damage to other parts of the building and in that case the court said it didn't matter that the insured needed to know the extent of its liability that was caused by the property damage it caused so long as quote insured merely missed ya notice of the property damage that resulted in viability prior to purchasing the policy a second district court opinion just came out this summer from the district of oregon that it's not in my brief when it was decided in june the cases alchemy quansah indemnity company two thousand and fourteen westlaw two eight zero nine eight three eight in that case the issue also was this identical one lost provision from the liability policy and there there were multiple property aspects of property damage had been caused by and in soils the insured argued that for damage that occurred during the policy period that was not known prior to the policy period that should be covered because insured didn't know about it and the courts know that so long as the risk property damage and the same underlying cause it constitutes a continuation change or resumption of earlier property damage which is the language that we have in our policy here do you want to be learning to so your honor to answer your question you look at the policy language and because you've got property damage that occurred in a whole or in part any and continuation change resumption of that property damage that known under the policy and for that reason there would be no coverage