judge while the district court essentially made two errors in the first he failed to apply controlling california law relating to the construction of insurance policies and two he focused on actions of a thief in determining coverage on the policy with regard to the first issue i'm going to note only only that how much was the loan around one hundred thousand with interest and such  they judge hoyle in his decision relating to coverage does not cite a single california authorities instead he relied on a montana and a louisiana case primarily the louisiana case which i'm just going to briefly note was decided based on civil law statutes louisiana statutes that if if not entirely contradictory were inconsistent with california law particularly with respect to the interpretation construction of responded in their briefs gave an example nicoll in which they claimed our position would create an absurd result is not true is hypothetical was a stolen tractor drove into new york where it is hooked up to a trailer and that of then and certainly i would continue having covered didn't you have a theft but you do not have covered cargo because the policy speaks of cargo in the possession of the insured un of lading and it also speaks of a mechanism in the policy a trigger mechanism where to have pall cargo cover you have to hook it up and haul it with a schedule tractor significantly tractors are not covered by this policy that's in the record there was a separate property policy the use of schedule tractors was merely a trigger mechanism so that you could do so that it would trigger coverage for cargo the insured had to use schedule tractors to haul cargo in order to have coverage  the truck driver disconnected and went home and were pulled into the yard and unloaded tractor took all the goods and so on i can then cover that had been covered i believe it would be for this reason and now presents a position that essentially saying it is their coverage the question for this court is is the coverage and in doing so it argued successfully to the underlying court and that the question of whether a thief could trigger coverage it is undisputed that coverage had been triggered from the time the vehicle was in the east coast and driven across the united states to fresno the question is not whether the truck coverage was triggered that's been admitted the question is whether coverage was then terminated by an act the significance of that is this if we are now dealing with a limitation or an exclusion because in this case you have coverage that the insurance company claims was terminated by the conduct of the insur in this case i submit that it is neither clear nor playing in so far as reading the definition you simply have it stating that if you have insurance on cargo it must be attached to a covered schedule traktor a reasonable insured could determine that that means it triggers coverage which would be exploiting if the insured went to find out what was excluded he would go to page one where they are prominently listed in the court i'm sure is reviewed and find there was nothing in there that excludes any kind of theft and there is nothing in there that excludes are applies an exclusion where the insured temporarily disconnects there is nothing in there that would indicate to a reasonable insurer that if he disconnects it terminates coverage that is such a drastic result that we submit that the law in california requires them to put not only in clear and plain language your coverage will terminate upon disconnection for any time but it must be conspicuous as this court has seen absence volterra where there was the court found you had to correlate three different definitions here you have a couple of provisions and you have a definition which coincidently is all the way at the bottom of page two the very last thing is this reference to a definition of a schedule be a call it is far removed from the exclusions that are listed prominently on page one it is not bold and it is not underlined there is nothing in tractor and when it's cold and it was hooked to a schedule tractor my and my client scheduled all the tractors it insure against the only way you could insure it's hard and it's fair because that's the only way the insurance company gets its premium that was never hauled with schedule that may raise an instance where an insurer would not have an objective look reasonable expectation of coverage here we have an insured who did everything right the only thing that happened is the truck driver disconnected went home to m two hours and a lot excluding sundays that could be an exclusion here it was left friday and the anticipated delivery was monday which would have been within uninsured would have assumed that he was acting within the scope of the policy but whether we apply strict construction or my construction a reasonable ensure his plate is premium there's no hiding from priest risk he would expect to have coverage under this particular policy and how simple it would be for canal just simply include language to include th your from thank you your honor the district court did not get to the issues of advice of counsel or genuine issue those were issues that rule that there are factual issues that require a trial on those two issues specifically on advice of counsel if i can just very briefly point out one page  physically attached needed any interpretation he said that there was never any question in his mind that the trailer had to be physically attached at the time the tractor was stolen not at the time the trailer on the cardinal but at the time the tractor was stolen we believe that testimony from mr mccarty who had the ultimate decision power and in fact made the decision in this case this efficient for a jury to conclude or and for that canal got advice of counsel simply a this gardener made it very clear during her deposition in the excerpts or pages to all five and two of the answers that she was only given the first report which in fact is a misnomer because it wasn't the first report from the adjusters that was the second or the third or fourth she wasn't given the witness statement from the truck driver john taylor she wasn't given the witness statement from peter schneider of t g asked she was given the photographs of the truck that showed mark presumably from a screwdriver to break into the truck through the wing window she wasn't given this information she never did any follow up information on the issue of breaking and physical evidence of break in which was another ground on which can she nor now nor the adjusters nor anyone else did any follow up investigation further if you look at her opinion in page fifty two of the expert excerpts she said there was no case which deals with the specific issue and she said on page fifty two the excerpts in her opinion the can now an argument can be made that there is no coverage for this claim and she admitted under deposition she never did any research of california law never researched california rules  interpretation never attempted to apply california interpretation rules and believed in her mind that as long as there was an argument that could be made that would be sufficient grounds to deny coverage there also  review clearly a one sided investigation and it was inadequate as a matter of law and we would ask the court simply to decide though if it reverses the judgment as to the interpretation of the policy and reverses the judgment for you now that it also consider the summary of cation issues and deny them based upon numerous disputed facts i think  is just like that case saltier case was a case where it was a forty three page single spaced letter and they're referring to all kinds of definitions all over the price this is a two page policy if you go to the experts records to pages twenty seven and twenty eight and you go to the ensuring language we pay for x not on a local loss or damage from any cover causes of lost to the covered cargo now the only way to figure out what that is you've got to read next year read what covered cause of losses and then you read whatever cargo it is and how do you figure out what a schedule the vehicle is until you go to the second page so if you just read you can't figure out what is insured insuring agreement and tell you go through this three step process unlike this top tier case run like this thompson case that they cite regarding un insurance where permissive user when you look at what an accidental loss from a cover cause of loss is clearly commenced we look at now again the ensuring agreement number one that we are in the age twenty seven twenty seven we will pay for accidental lost or damage of any cover caught causes of loss to cover cargo so here's the step there's no question that this tractor was attached to a different trailer on the night of that that to a scheduled vehicle here the cargo is going to trailer unattached it doesn't get stolen i tell the trailer tractor which is stolen gets attached to it once you assume possession and control of that trailer you have stolen it for basic fundamental california insurance law under the bank of the west you look at the reasonable expectations and reasonable interpretation you don't you don't get to the ambiguity issue unless you can read the whole policy first and say it's ambiguous  saying that at the time that heat heat that that tractors or trailers unattached at the moment that he goes over there and starts taking possession and control that trailer he is stealing that and it's not attached at that time he has the back the trailer designated that trailer i'm taking it i'm going to take this tractor i'm going to unhook it from another trailer i'm going to take this tractor over there and steal that trailer at the time that that trailer is being stolen it's not attached it's the process of stealing it with to do it he's going to come into the yard unauthorized now he's on property that he's not authorized to be there so nice committing a criminal act and how is he going to get there what is he going to do is going to go over to the trailer make sure nobody else is around unambiguous provision in the policy the argument that they were making at the trial court was because this is then translate intelligence to delivery it's all in transit and so when you ask the question gee doesn't make any difference if the trailer had never been attached just sitting there and somebody has stolen the stewards out of it would it is still been covered his answer was yes because that's their interpretation is that it was as long as it's in transit regardless of the policy language it's still covered where the inter going and i'd like to address a couple of comments regarding the bad faith in punitive damages there are no factual disputes here that would prevent an adjudication of bad faith and punitive damages to get them to and from this case they conducted a reasonable investigation yes they were of the opinion that this was not covered but they didn't deny it on that basis they sought expert coverage advice and the coverage advice told them yes this is an appropriate denial that's not bad  what the district court did and so that we accept their notion that the facts are before the court this court can decide that and looking at the facts as undisputed as they are what they're doing they're trying to create kind of a red herring here in this they would say the investigation wasn't complete because there was some issue about how it was broken into whether it was you know evidence of broken entry or something like that that doesn't matter to the issue upon which they deny coverage you can have a thousand different reasons to deny coverage  not investigate all a thousand you take the one that you're going to deny and if that's a reasonable position to take at the time regardless of what other investigation could be done on these other issues that's not a basis for bad faith why do people b where but even with that they don't deny it what they do is then they go out and get expert legal coverage advice coverage counsel that that they specialize earlier we had that counsel that was the representing the government representing the government all th civil marijuana cases that's what this berm is to the cargo industry this firm does insurance coverage nationwide for cargo interpretation and that's what this company did it went to that law firm and got advice that said this is inappropriate  so when you put all of those facts together it's a reasonable position to take and there's there's cases we cited in our brief where on that kind of a factual situation when the fashion are undisputed that it is appropriate for summary g cation that there is no bad fa on and it says that in a then i would be appropriate under the past of this games that's me advice that they've given in her deposition she makes clear that that's the advice that she gave me i mean you're going to have a situation ok they keep saying well gee district court didn't apply any california law there is no california case that interprets this policy and so when you sit here as an insurance company you say ok here's the issue what do we do now we don't think it powers this case but you know what let's be cautious here let's get advice and counsel not just any counsel but counsel that specializes in cargo coverage and let's go ask them what they think and to say ok this is what we believe that is what she believes she can say there's a case right on get advice of counsel under those circumstances that is not bad faith you are we've got you