dealing of an insurance carrier with its insurer and this issue spanned the entire time of the insurer insured relationship between novelist and world wide arrows it started january of two thousand and three that the insured received any notice that what he thought would be a post delivery exclusion would be applied to crew delivery ongoing contractual obligations that it was fulfilling for its client there are going to couple of cases that have come down recently that are important i think for the court's consideration because we're dealing with not only the interpretation of insurance policies and how one should interpret them but also and in particular exclusions in those insurance policies but also we're dealing with questions of a stoppel and the case that that i'd like to bring to the court's attention going down question of how one is to interpret an exclusion that is presented to the insurer within the context of an endorsement of that is precisely what would have been the scales rather than the underlying facts of the case it did affect the premium price not be able to get i don't think a policy for twenty five hundred dollars that would insure the manufacturing process original well and if we're taking a look and we're asking questions as to whether there was a material very cheap amount to pay if you were getting the coverage you're claiming that is correct but the policy is subject on it specifically within the terms of the policy itself as a main opinion the price  charged in the beginning was nothing more than a down payment i think that's specifically the terms that was used in the policy and it was subject to audit at the end of whatever policy period there may be anymore play there was nothing more pa however there was not an exclusion that would apply to that no your honor the would not because it was still by virtue of the use of the terminology operations there was still coverage afford it and even though the district court recognized that there was because the f a a only required that one why don't still retain some control over that particular issue and leadership itself again we don't need to talk about products let's talk about what was really being done there because this is not a product case per se and is a case of a fairly to provide adequate training on what to do as a member of the ground crew and what was still ongoing was the training what was still not delivered was the manual and under neither of those scenarios was there any instruction or information given that those on the ground crew should be wearing protective helmets it was not until after this accident the ground handling manual was produced and given over to the customer but  defect in the controls some difficulty in the propeller that was ultimately found not to be the case the difficulty in this case related to the training that was being received by the ground crew manufacturing i say training as part of the contract which is part of the operations that was being performed by the insurer and that's where this case differs from the cases such as the other out of state case that's cited in the br because they know there was no ongoing contractual performance then there was no question but that everything that was called for in the agreement between the parties had been completed and the only case i think they talked about subsequent surfacing or a giving reviewing the i c a w s and then giving approval for that delivery i don't think it ever occurred in this case because i don't think that there was ever approval i would defer to mr russell covered it certainly had not occurred as of the time of this incident certainly training had not been completed so the contract was still open still needed to be taken care of then was in the process of being taken care  well i'm not sure whether he will if the court has any question was not our agent it was the insurance agent which was robert matheson there was also an attorney who was involved that was sending information to mr matheson who was filling out the application so all right what was the broker thousand wrong that it was being called upon to cover not only the products claim pertaining to the ship but also claims explicitly in the complaint the dealer with the training of the c is distinguishable because here we're dealing with a statutory regulatory obligation to advise in the insurance company simply didn't do that that endorsement here the the broker for world wide mr matheson applied for insurance and he said that to his knowledge what the insurer did was advert was manufactured advertising at the time this policy was issued it was then the stand of the broker represented worldwide and the agent who are agent and and novice insurance company that what the insured was doing was manufacturing advertising blues and so we saw not a less issued a policy and with various provisions one of which is the exclusion for products complete operations hazard two was a designated premises operations indorsement and three an aircraft exclusion i believe that all three of these exclusions together or independently eliminate the potential for coverage in light of the allegations against the world wide now mr robbins has tried to argue here at the district court level that legal delivery is since there was not a legal delivery therefore there is an exception to the arises from the insurance product it occurs away from the premises of the insured except if the product is still in the physical possession of the insured and it's actually says physical possession  law if you're in california outside of the communities specifically said that that if it's the facto possession it's not whether the the insured still maintain some sort of lease rights or some some kind of rights in the product defacto the insured have possession of it at the time of the accident here mr robbins argued that the insured still had some sort of physical possession of this aircraft and the  facts don't support that but even even if you were assume that's correct if the insured had physical possession of the aircraft at the time of the incident then they were necessarily operating the aircraft at the time of the incident and therefore that would fall squarely within the exclusion for aircrafts jerk mr robbins has made a lot of the fact that we supposedly knew what the insureds two operations were as of january two thousand and it is true there was a another accident in january two thousand inside the explosion in this hangar at some time i think four to eight weeks later this was reported to nautilus not a list investigated as a property insurance claim and the claim was not adjusted until february two thousand and one so this payment that mr robbins is talking about did not occur and to some seven eight months after the the subject since that occurred in terms of waiver of stoppel that really doing they would have gone out and got other insurance but there's no evidence before the court of that i mean competent evidence of that to create a trial wish to a fact would have been that the insured could think that there was insurance available for a prototype length that that that what the premium would have been that the insured had means to pay that there was nothing like that all they had was a declaration from mr pasternack the principal worldwide saying something like i might have got other insurance elsewhere that's not enough to create detrimental of violence and under the waiver doctrine california of all is very clear that the there has the clear and convincing evidence that the insurance company intentionally wait a known right and there's just no evidence at all that that model is waived anything and in fact they promptly agreed to defend world wide and our reservation of rights they call it a strict reservation of rights they specifically said we're not waiving any other exclusions or endorsements and so there's no evidence of waiver in this were actually training this ground crew i think with the really saying is that men who were supposed to but we didn't see first of all i think that if we were training the ground crew or we were somehow have operational responsibility for this ground crew that i think there's a fair argument to be made that we were actually a part of world wide was a part of a team that was operating the aircraft but in fact i don't think that they really i know they did not o aircraft at the time of the incident and in fact they were not operating this aircraft that i'm this because they were not training this ground crew however even if that was a viable theory of liability the the exclusion for this insurance is not applied a lot of the injury for any operations other than those in the schedule is the schedule it says manufacturing risk only so i submit that training and air their aircraft crew or ground crew is not manufacturing that is a service manufacturing you're producing something training a ground crew that's a completely different type of operation and also you have to look at that that endo in conjunction with the decorations which describe worldwide operations has many factory advertising deludes so the only fair interpretation of that endorsement is that coverage is limited to the onsite be under the particular circumstances of this case and as i've indicated in the brief under the circumstances of this case given the way this insurance company don't with the airship loss previously there was a reasonable expectation that  is teaching you about how the country operates and how the judicial system operates and i thought i heard as well that that you're also taking  class and speaking and communication which is very very important here not being on that and so you have this great opportunity with this wonderful teacher and it only takes one teacher one teacher in your life to change it and to get you thinking about what you're going to do in the future and if you have one teacher you're very fortunate i had one teacher and i was fortunate about that sometimes we have a lunch wagon out here