already been removed we have not been compensated for that we do you sure you can compensate for doing the work what you're claiming is you weren't compensated for additional costs which you say are going to be incurred in the future me got paid for the work right we were paid for the work is the contract is written rather than what we actually get the job contract what did it what did you do that you  that what you were doing included removing from the specs this and that's what the problem was and then after that they tell you to clean up whatever happened do whatever you had to do to get rid of these fast this is a lot better paid  example if that is what you what we've been discussing it seems to me clear that you were compensated you may not think enough but you were compensated for all the much the same way i suppose it would say that it includes obviously the wages you will pay and if you had to provide some transportation if you had some trucks that will haul on the stuff away the cost of gasoline and all those things but this proceed with recognition of the costs of court should change the terms of the contract and make provisions for recognizing some other bases such as more damages why should the the contractor be able to repair for these hypothetical law when the employee under the supreme court's decision in metro north can't sin because his or her claims are deemed to be too speculative why three the employees  supposed to work evidence and i'm not saying there is in this case but suppose there were evidence that contractors generally when that happened to them would go out and buy an insurance policy that was an established insurance policy to insure against those risks that it would be common for a contractor under those circumstances to go buying the policy to cover its future risk in the course of those policies are well established with the government be liable if the contractor w my hypothetical that there's a there's no well established market for contractors who have their employees in the dirt really exposed to asbestos there's a well established market if you go to an insurance company of america and you buy a policy for ten thousand dollars as are you know what that thousand dollars per employee and you know that would be routine practice for our company under those circumstances to go out and buy the policy would the like this is whether they're entitled to a difficult compensation either because the government breached the term of the contract or because things have come up that the parties could not have fairly anticipated at the government in failing to pay this additional amount breeks section whatever it was a plea contract it seems to be more a kind of a claim for an equitable adjustment that they should get additional money because when i entered into the contract they had not knowing of the presence of a their spouse to celebrities pay they had no reason to believe that they would be subject to these possible additional costs and therefore in  after it was discovered that been a specialist in some of the stuff they went out and purchased a public liability policy had a substantial premium to cover i mean a liability they might be subjected is not that they wouldn't be entitled to some kind of remedy there was whether it was apparently an innocent misrepresentation but a clear misrepresentation nobody  that had all of this knowledge been available in the first place there might have been a different contract negotiator and if that's the case then i don't understand the government's position that nonetheless when it's just covered after the fact there can be no remedy if in fact it i think reasonable we haven't considered kind of this is just now whether there should be the possibility or the probability of accept the premise that knowing that these injuries take a long time to manifest themselves maybe they were in fact injured more than the additional cost of getting rid of the remaining not so clear these are not marge sermons of money from a global viewpoint but to an individual contract or a certain area and i think the real question is what is the the fair and just and equitable remedy knowing creation of the self insured program that is not the moon is drawing a distinction between the proposition that judge friedman made which is i actually bought the insurance and in fact what the monetary any money that have been paid out or that will be paid beyond pure speculation about what might happen sometime in the future and we have my own indication that if they were to do this that the government would do anything other than say well that that was commercial insurance is a self insured and then one cent and i think it's not of use didn't terms of a conscious decision rather than pay the insurance premiums i'm going to set aside part