box it does not seem as if like it would be much given much utility in conducting an additional analysis of that language this morning so what i would like to do instead of going to the specific language is to talk about a couple of global issues that come up with regard to degree removal of general casual casualty and reassurance here in the policy there's an initial ten thousand dollars in recognition that their losses were not fully covered and in recognition of the language of the real removal section require the language of that intersection internally established them to separate limits of that coverage and debris removal falls into that subsection the third category which is not at issue here but just to mention it for your information is a the ten thousand dollars in additional coverage that happens when one when either one of two circumstances occur and in both of those instances that additional coverage is available to the policy holder when they are not being fully compensated  could purchase twenty five thousand dollars but again that would be in addition to the payments made under subsection two and that is the interpretation that is appropriate in this case the language of subsection reply otherwise there would be a situation created where there would be a vast inequity in the amount of money a policy holder could receive as the defendants are somehow section question for you is that really are concerned i mean we have to look at what the policy covers and the parties obviously made a decision whether or not to purchase this policy an insurance company made a decision whether or not to operate it isn't that the end some of the other materials brought in for reference to how that would have been done how pissed off he could have been here if that was the intent of the insurance company because it here it's not intent to the insurance company then they intended to going to be the twenty five percent except that the limitation of section or won't affect that amount so don't you when they say the most we will pay don't you have to look at the rest of the country to see what other limits around there so for example would have been limited to the twenty five percent which is still majority six thousand actually about four hundred forty or sixty five fascinating you're talking about the available coverage was opposed to the amount that under the facts of the case could have been more in the neighborhood yes plus then the ten thousand dollars in additional ok so that's what i want to get to so under your theory your client was entitle to one million eight hundred fifty thousand because it was a total loss of the building and the watts exceeded that amount that was the limit they were entitled to two hundred forty six thousand dollars for debris removal and then they were entitled to ten thousand dollars for additional debris removal and you're claiming that even though the to an additional ten thousand dollars how how is it determined as to the amount under the suction or under your reading of the of the policy how would you determine the amount but what goes into that  calculation it's not saying we will pay you ten thousand dollars we will pay up to an additional one thousand dollars so i mean i have trouble trying to figure out what that ten thousand represents clear but for be a power on that provision that sentence to me under your reading of the of the policy i can't quite make the logical connection what is that payment for and how would you calculate the amount since it isn't a platform thousand it's up to an additional five thousand so it seems that it's meant to be for something beyond maybe what you first suggested so far y removable coverage woman patient paragraph two we will pay up to an additional ten thousand so let's say you have a loss of five hundred thousand total just for hypothetical and direct physical loss is one hundred thousand dollars into pre mortal is thirty thousand dollars under the policy they're going to pay twenty five percent of the hundred thousand dollar direct physical law so that's twenty the policy by only five thousand dollars perhaps that's what the up to additional ten thousand dollars is really getting at that you would only get five thousand dollars because they only compensate but in this instance that's not what occurred the losses were well over the companies don't support that reading because the debris removal language in most cases as well as a model policy provides that there is an extra limit  don't know but i think that region is a subsidiary of q b and general casualty it's a subsidiary human i think they are two completely independent entities trial court the policy is issued by region and there's no insurance policy issued by general kathy and i don't believe there's anything in the record establishing any relationship section c the limits of insurance unless provided otherwise in the debris removal provision there is language provided otherwise under of for the ten thousand dollars additional removal coverage there is nothing that provides otherwise undersell to the twenty five percent clause maybe we should start there then it goes maybe you could be very clear pointing out  that amounts of payable are not subject to the limits of insurance all right so thing that says that just like there's nothing that says that in a score of other provisions that lie for additional coverage is the case law that you have a dvocated as controlling forty then complain that express language is upright partially correct this is important and i really encourage the court to go back provision which is the ten thousand dollars limit provision that was located in the limits of the insurance section of the policy now this is important section two is the one that provides the twenty five percent payment each and in which the sixth circuit said that section two was subject to the limits of insurance set forth in section c even though nothing subject to or in the limits of insurance section specifically said that the limits of insurance do not apply to section two it was only in the context of looking at this policy limits under the ten thousand dollars payment wouldn't have been better this year so for this policy but something to the fact that the if the section two debris removal expense and the damage to the building the direct physical damage exceed the power suit limits that in that event only coverage for eight is fail that is certainly one way of doing it but there is almost no contract especially of an insurance contract or commercial contract that cannot upon retrospect be argued to have they made clear if contracts were drafted that waiting to be encyclopedic so it's always easy on retrospect to propose alternative ways of doing things and if it had been done that way we never would be in this courtroom but i don't think that gets around looking at the way in which these contracts are put together and specifically looking at the language that is at issue here and squaring that with the analysis that we've made which mirrors  let me care to clarify first of all any statements made by the claims person or adjuster after the loss is simply inadmissible for purposes of attempting to establish ambigu court of appeals expressly relied on sections for two and for all three of the american jurisprudence second on contracts and in that case and again i encourage the court to go look at review there was a block  negotiations between the parties may be considered in order to ascertain in what sense the parties themselves used them think it was terms and went on to say that the court may have recourse to the circumstances under which the contract was made and the conference is in correspondences between the parties pending the negotiation of the final agreement so the rebuking court says sure if there's some ambiguity in the contract you can look at statements made contemporary to the formation of the pond but that's a different legal position than saying you can resort to statements made by persons who don't even have any authority to buy  signing party made as much as a year or year and a half after the contract is entered into you can't look to post last statements made by an adjuster in order to determine what the intent of the contracting parties was the time that the contract was entered into not intent but evidence of bent acuity so are you telling me that you have and this is a hypothetical i'm not suggesting this is what occurred here but if you're telling are you telling me that if the head of i'm providing for your company your client's insurance company indicated in this case i've read this language i don't know what it means this is very confusing that that could legal principle of what constitutes the scope of admissible role evidence that this is different from a commonsense point of view of whether a person's observations may be relevant for purposes of determining and i'm talking about threshold issue of admissibility to determine a legal question of whether a contract provision is in the us and i think that under ripping this court would have to and l'arche the scope of the parole evidence rule in order to allow a miss ability of the kind of evidence that you just referenced but was something the individual has of the of this paul if i could be able to render such an opinion ok so it's not just some individual off the straight that's plucked out to say read this what do you think i'm talking now in my hypothetical that it's the head of underwriting why wouldn't that be a an admission whether or not it's binding or not why would something that would be very relevant and perhaps even open and of motion i think it's because well first of all it depends on when the statement was being made but i will try to answer that question in the spirit in which it was asked which is  again i think that once you open the door to that kind of evidence there's no way of stopping it now if the underwriter offered testimony that at the time of the contract it was my belief that she was mistaken in her preliminary understanding well the confusion may be is what she was describing she and i'm reading from the e mail of hers of the some of the fifteenth two thousand and eight quote i've read this over and over and i don't think i understood this correctly at first i thought the insured had four hundred sixty two thousand five hundred dollars additional coverage for green removal if the building limit was used for her to see that but after reading this the understanding you can do that by reference to statements made a year after the contract was entered into particularly when they're made by people like an insurance agent an adjuster and others of that nature that are involved in the claims of just the stage and they're not the drafters of the contract i want to go back to the which case because i do think that the sixth circuit decision is very relevant here do you have any of illinois already and i'll let you go so we're here but do you have any illinois already that's comparable to we'll you know you're right ok nothing that dresses the specific issue back we've only located the three principle cases that were and and cats remember now this is the sixth circuit federal court of appeals that court was looking at section two twenty five percent was in major section at and then looking at section c limits of insurance the court said this the phrase quote the most we will pay was quote indicates that this is an additional limit on whatever debris removal coverage the policy provides and does nothing to remove the general language in section see the words this court is looking at this phrase the most we will pay in section two same in the whip cases it is in our case and then saying that this language has nothing to remove the general language in section furthermore with efforts to eliminate your overall policy limitations in section see through the last sentence of sub for a is unavailing that language may be ambiguous but not in the way that which tries to read it and not in a way that undermines the entire policy the fact that this limitation which clearly refers to the limit of twenty five percent does not apply to any additional debris removal limit does not mean that the overall policy limit provided in section c does not apply indeed even if the limitations in a does not apply that twenty five percent clause is in section a just like the reasons policy the ten thousand dollar limit clause was in the limits of insurance section it sounds ok so is this in our insurance policy here that we're talking about in this case you know it is not ok but that language only refers to the effect of the additional ten thousand dollars and that limitation language is in such a that's assuming that your reading of section or of being correct that section four specifically is allowing for coverage above the limits of insurance while in which again twenty five percent clauses in section a the ten thousand limit clauses in section c and the language that you quoted from payments under the following will not increase that statement is made specifically with respect to the ten thousand dollars it's not made with respect to the twenty five percent additional now your question was is that statement in regions policy payments under the following will not increase it's not in regions policy in section seat but it sure is happy as in regions policy in section eight under the ten thousand dollars additional coverage that the insurer is entitle to more than the policy limits for debris removal under the right facts and that's exactly what regent acknowledged so in some of the limits of insurance provision in regions policy does sacking one point five five million dollars cap that happens out salute unless provided otherwise it is provided otherwise with respect to the ten thousand dollar limit on debris removal it is not provided otherwise with respect to the twenty five percent additional coverages and all i can do inclusion is ask that the court take a good close look at the answer to that then is that not a reasonable interpretation does it doesn't become an ambiguous policy under your i mean if i were to discount europe we were going viscount what you said about the limits of insurance  argument because appellant cannot come up with an explanation as to that ten thousand dollars and what it would represent under repellents theory that is not in a reasonable interpretation of this policy line but i think i understand the question and i want to be i'm i want to be sympathetic to her argument but i believe the answer is yes and i think your question is under the right facts does the ten thousand dollars have to be paid only if at least that amount has been incurred removal of studs i think the example given was supposed to debris removal expenses was six thousand and they were four thousand short of the ten to get the full ten your building coverage so even if the policy limits don't fully compensate the lost of the building the debris removal coverage is paid only to those costs incurred with respect to whatever is steps to remove let's start with what mr silver just spoke about the up to additional ten thousand dollars i think for the most part now that i've had a little time to reflect on it and to read the language without the pressure needing to answer it i think  i agree mr so it's up to an additional ten thousand dollars again as i said earlier the ten thousand dollars goes into play when the policyholders not being fully when it says up to an additional ten thousand dollars that's it we're going to mobile expense if the combination of debris removal plus the loss to the building exceeded the total power the city limit by five thousand there to get that extra five thousand which is what i think i got it wrong but so what it comes to whether or not any of you read zits it is very difficult to see how you can say that your poems position is not you there is not more than