at that time to claim gone to ten l j but there'd be no in no circumstances where that local shared tax that we receive would have ever gone to the  truly involve situations of discords man or where restitution and take for instance the locals have no five teamsters and that case pension and the holding of that court was that insured does not sustain and insurable loss by returning to the rightful owners that which the insured had the right to in the first but that's not is at best case scenario ours support it which i don't think that we are if we distorted everything there are still potentially more to do over and above what we lacked because number one there's the thirty percent that were fired by private in the corporation had to give the stocks back and the court analogize that it is is even stolen property and here i don't think anybody can stand here and say th taxes and was also responsible for distributing the town had the school district money here we're not responsible for collecting it or are you are you are not responsible for distributing it and we certainly don't have the central docket case also cited in the reports of its pennsylvania case is also different in that case the school district imposed a tax on housewives and retirees it was improperly eleven ten in the court how you have to give it back you have the money you have to give it back to the rightful owners the people who paid the tax and again this is not the situation not being sued to return it improperly lent you know always being sued for entering into this act now enveloping remains which cause fund its continue operations into force or paragraph forty seven where it specifically prays for its sales tax that it was deny as well as the two prayers for  to worry freeze for its sales  i think we have to remember we're dealing with an explosion and they're especially screwed up more so than the rest of the policy and any guarantee you ladies are construed very strongly in favor of the insured and the ex phrase apples or oranges and so i'll talk about that by i'd like to start off by talking about the exclusion because of the court agrees with the trial judge that the exclusion for tax wise  looked at the word taxes and didn't really focus on the qualifiers in that sentence specifically from souter whether whether the taxes that are involved in this collected this revenue now and so therefore it couldn't whatever money they have paid couldn't be repayment of taxes because they never collected the tax if there are no problem well what's wrong with letters other contradicts the allegations on the why now is a great argument for the underlying case and maybe it's time to support a judgment in their favor in the underlying case but in the courage case when your it's a duty to defend case like we have here and all you're doing is looking at the white area policy you can't base a presentation of requests for coverage on the fact that an allegation complaint is false paragraph thirty eight alleges that genoa received an unjustified windfall in sales tax revenue that's the allegation now maybe that's not true they say but that's the allegation and that's that's the allegation on which the court church say i'm entitled to a difference because an allegation that negates coverage is on both sides are bound by the allegations on the one so that's true here as well they're stuck development agreement under which they whole life of sales tax revenue or sales tax revenue was distributed to about it was a sham it was contrary to law and the sales were generated within the r t a is taxing boundaries not in general which is outside those boundaries and so none of the money that you know i receive should remember so that's the collection now you say that the taxes imposed by the state and collected by the state and then distributed to to juneau on but they collect those distribut they receive the money again the complaint says they were sued the money why says i have no right to receive it and they have to give it up and the only party seeking that money is the r t a so i think the exclusion applies and furthermore my last point is that if any of these categories of lies and the two most likely candidates are election or the the term arising out of an exclusion i think it's important to focus on arising out of what it means councillor first the fact that exclusions are construed narrowly against you sure that rule is true she's had a chance to review it the name of the case is only has the company curses west done be in a palace rush from it's a second district decision from december twenty third of last year and the case number is two thousand and fifteen standard mutual versus play years ago so the court is saying this this type of lawsuit and anything in any event the policy the restaurant's policy and exclusion for violations of the and i think the court i respectfully submit should adopt the reasoning of that decision here if any of the damages side in this case or i should say there were many side in this case prostitutes repayment or collection of taxes then the exclusion implies and it applies to all of the damages because they all involve a repayment collection taxes they all arise out even if if they wanted to exclude all cases related axes they could have worded that policy that they didn't save and so we're down to the collection of taxes or is it about