koppel i'm having a little bit of trouble getting around the what to me is fairly explicit condition and in the agreement that the policy applies to personal injury the policy applies to the to the personal injury i just said a personal injury or property damage and it seems to me that you've got a problem for because on may one there was a completed i'm going to call a tort and action the cause of action isn't there  landlord from and i think it's as has been endeavoring to recover possession of a rental unit on an invalid basis and describes the three month period in which the landlord has to move into the property wrongful until the property owner fails to move in to the unit as expected even if at the time of the action they had pension no intention of ever doing  confers where on a month to month tenancy and everyone agreed that the negatives would move out by the end of april to avoid having to pay pro rata rent in may why isn't that enough to conclude that the ten tenancy was think that we had stated it would be ten minutes your honor and then mr wagner would take five minutes but i'll try to wrap it up before then and just if you go over you're going into away and then i can barely hear undisputed facts at the time of the tender establish that the a vixen had occurred prior to the inception of the policy all of the events that constitute an eviction had occurred  llant certified on three separate occasions under penalty of perjury that they recovered possession of the property no later than may st two thousand and eight team so there is an indication in the opening and i would agree with that i think there could be a proof issue at that point although you know if they filed suit right after the eviction they probably wouldn't get a chance to take a deposition st number of months and it would probably all flow out but i do understand what what your honor is  contemplating their end and the most direct response is that the under the language of this policy the policy is not triggered by you know a cruel of a cause of  they didn't know whether that eviction was wrongful or what not and they came to discover it later and so there was a holding that the standard holding that the discovery rule would apply there response the question is we are barking up the wrong tree the cruel of the cause of action or the time it which the the tenants begin to think of it as wrongful are are not events that again the the standard under the policy the language is injury not discovery of wrongfulness or are that that kind of inquiry posted on that path you might be playing into opposing so we can we can talk about that piece of the case as well let me also just again reiterate for the court that the the established california law with respect to the nature of an injury swingers as california counsel to insurance company which is cited in the breeze the court held the act of disposition whether lawful or not to quote inflicts an obvious harm to an important interest the claimant's interest in a lease hold a place of shelter a home the harm is obvious and it's substantially certain to occurs so that's the damage element if you think about an element that's the damage and i think you're spot on and what he's arguing correct and so that is the question i suppose that is a question for the court to examine whether the time it whether this policy is triggered by the time it which the tenants become other things true so so if we assume which i think is really the only reasonable assumption here that this eviction did occur and done and dusted by may one  thousand and eighteen pursuant to a palin's certifications under penalty of perjury to the rent board the question then becomes whether derivative harms alleged in the form of higher rent and emotional distress allegedly sustained by the former tenants during the policy period but which arose out of an eviction that took place prior to the policy period which satisfy the policy period limitation of the policy and we believe the answer is categorically no under california law the reason st and foremost is because the argument proves to court of appeal which is cited in the brief and interpretation of the policy to this effect the harbor insurance company court stated would be entirely unreasonable and cannot be reached as being within the reasonable expectations of the insured what counsel is arguing on the other side is that is that there was a longer notice period the eviction notice was served on march th two thousand and eighteen and it was a sixty day period and therefore it expired on may th two thousand and eighteen the facts establish that the lease had been terminated the tenants had vacated and the the legal of the wrongful addiction as the language of the policy indicates is the injury of dispossession that is what is referred to that's the  of an eviction the dispossession of the tenants from the premises so that injury occurred prior to the policy period the question is whether these derivative tenent and then seek coverage on under a policy issued four years later for those derivative emotional arms or increases in rent and again under the harbor insurance company case and other the mere fact they don't have sufficient evidence to go to court under rule twelve doesn't mean they don't have a back there could be frizzes a polygraph test there could be truths or there could be all kinds of ways to prove something sure that's unrealistic you are asking by agreement of our with our written consent because of personal injury of property damage covered by this policy that's the definition you just asked to look at that i'm looking at it but i didn't understand i think you're moving on to ask what your argument may i ask a question of mr knapp if i could before geico rest here you kept referring to harbor insurance and it seems like there might be a potential conflict in california case law and i'm just trying to figure out how do we square the concern announced in harper insurance century tortfeasor could purchase a policy such as this after committing that tore and thereby enjoyed coverage for it yet to be unfolded consequences with the decision in montrose that permits coverage of occurrences that happened prior to the policy period but that they should know we know that didn't occur over her within the policy period but might say that emotional harm occurred after a policy period