i'd like to reserve five minutes for if i don't want to wait so long the rest of the they're ready to go i know you're ready to go past supreme court and there's a number of reasons why that should be done this airplane fell on mr grafton who was an innocent third party old republic denied coverage claiming that there was no annual inspection there but here with the taxi show substantial compliance and the bad it does look at the reasonable expectation of the insured and his reasonable expectation was that he was coverage he had paid for a plane paid for a pre buy inspection which she reasonably thought was an annual inspection and less than two months later he paid for a mechanic to do everything possible to make the plane safe with the mechanic may be loyal or  insurer makes a clear statement that there's a need for an early news certificate and what is an airworthiness certificate they don't tell us in the policy it's not defined there the word phrase annual inspection is nowhere in the policy  honest mistake he thought he had done the annual inspection the other problem with the insurance company's position is there's no possible connection between the failure to have the annual inspection and the plane crash itself and we  coming in with some other reason after the fact as a trap for the unwary saying well you didn't have the annual inspection we don't care that one of that caused the crash or not and even though you thought you'd got it if he someone had stopped him out on th nothing about annual inspection that that's the work that he ordered done right well no insurance agent called to his attention and then the insurance agent is the expert not the pilot saying you have to use the magic words mr pilot when you go in you have to use these magic words no matter if you spend two thousand dollars getting your plane thanks you have to use the magic word genuine specialist saying i want everything done to make the plane safe is insufficient isn't that rather technical that he has to go in with th special magic language to the to the mechanic he didn't know that and he was an advice to that and even if you had read the policy nothing in there would have said anyone suspects generated line in there where the negative think it isn't saying do everything been conducted would have turned up i'm interested particularly in the problem of fuel contamination right that is to say that one of the possible causes of this was when he had trouble with the fuel contamination even before he took off he drained the tanks a few times finally got it to run  law who had flown a lot and he said this brown sediment is common in planes and don't be worried about it so apparently that's not my question my question is what evidence do we have the record that the annual know that it would have turned up this problem is a product of we don't know what anyone special knew period through that again that is to say the reason we don't have in the record whether an annual inspection would have turned up the problem with the fuel contamination is that we don't have anything in the record as to what an annual inspection does period no we don't your honor far as i know but i do know that council below if you laded that there is no causal connection for purposes of the motion for summary judgment so at lo and behold the company filed a declaratory relief action another reason i like nevada to take a look at that is because nevada so strong on giving the insured the benefit of the bargain they it took thirty years for insurance companies to try to get anti stacking language in their policies in nevada because nevada is so far to interpret policies in favor of the insured because when people pay money for a premium they expect that they're covered and that's of a car to be a licensed driver and that the policy will be voided if the person is the pilot doesn't comply with the airworthiness requirements that is a mechanism is it not to protect the public now when he doesn't do it and the unfortunate incident that we're dealing with here a third party not the pilot is the one who suffers the grievous injuries i understand there's a problem in terms of in that case now there's no insurance and maybe the causation issue goes to that but to have a requirement that there be airworthy no certificate as a condition of coverage you say is contrary to public policy well here we have a record different from potter v ranger because it's been developed here you have an intelligent man a doctor former military pilot who's flown small planes and he doesn't know what they mean by it and they don't find the term it's there in the record that he thought it was something having to do with the plane's manufacture and where the next coming out of the factory so yes i have to say the insurance company can shift rest but there has to be noticed and has to be clear what we're talking about and requiring him to do all the insurance agent had to do when he went in so you tell your people his faction were for a few hundred dollars more you can add me and you'll be caught up on that because that's going out in six weeks the insurance agent is the expert not the the burden on the insurance company to make sure that he doesn't aren't aren't they the ones that are wanting to be a higher authority than the f a a the f a a says you know no citation here even and the insurance compan saying well we're a higher authority we are going to absolutely technically use this exclusion to exclude you from a million dollar contract as a pretty guy when exclusion and it would seem to me that the person getting insurance question about that would have the burden to question whether it's needed or what it means what it seems to say you've got to get it well that's why i would like the substantial compliance as well as insurance cases in nevada would say no if you're going to do an exclusion that's pretty harsh that's the forfeiture we want to see some relationship between then spill you'd have a manual and the crash itself and testimony is that he has some confusion about whether or not the airworthiness requirement included the handle inspection and if you read his testimony carefully and testimony is contradictory and i think if you read it you'll see that it's not very credible but what he says is i thought that the airworthiness inspection requirement was a requirement that was administered are required when an aircraft is first sold that being that the f a a has said this plane is there worthy but he goes on later in his testimony and says i knew that there was an annual inspection required every year he also sa knew that that had to be noted in the log book so whether or not he understood the airworthiness in the context of the annual doesn't matter he knew that that plane had to have the truth is that the air worthiness inspection is a well known requirement every pilot that testified in this case said of course we know the airworthiness handle inspection requirement trying to find coverage it's not credible but even when you look carefully at his testimony he says i knew i needed a and you know i knew it had to be noted in the log book i got in that plane and flew as you and the airworthiness factor is not a trifling requirement it's not something that the insurance company throws in just to defeat coverage it's an interval part of the f a s attempt to make sure that we have safe aircraft what is coming jumping then on to the safety issue what is the evidence the miscues as to what if any relationship there was   there was no cause we did that there was no cause ation in this case the causation was unclear the what we argued was you don't have to determine the cause ation in order to find no coverage but this is what the evidence was on causation first of all there's dr jensen's testimony that he had an aircraft that had spidering and engine problems and that he found sediment in the fuel  i believe there was evidence that the annual inspection would have checked the fuel filters would have checked to fill the gas saline and presumably would have found such a problem if it existed the other evidence is the investigation by the et and n t s b they concluded that the the cause of the crash was pilot hair in other words dr janssen was on final approach he was switching subject of the tort case whether you know what was the cause of that that was never concluded so our argument in front of the district court in the coverage case was it doesn't matter what the cause ation was the majority of court found that causation is not the key but the key is it was this number one was the exclusion ambiguous and number two if it was not ambiguous visit against public policy and both of those i do your honor for these reasons one i don't think there's a legitimate division of authority the vast majority of cases on the subject find that it's not an ambiguous provision even this court in the potter versus ranger and we're going to have a rule in florida that says you have to show for an exclusion that the loss was caused by that exclusion same thing in texas so those states have adopted statutes that have set public policy in those states so those those cases are not how we know how important is this question to insurance law is causation question how important is it just cause a scene in general i mean how important question that arises so infrequently that the nevada supreme court won't care much whether we get nevada law right or another way of asking this same getting at the same question what harm is there in our  vatican has already said when we're analyzing and when we're analyzing and exclusion we're going to do exactly what every almost every other state does that is we're going to analyze is the exclusion ambiguous and two is it against public policy and just like the fistric or the key question in any seeking certification is is it a novel question this is not a novel question was how novel question but is there an established answer in nevada law i think there is that's the that analysis and if we want and if we conclude that the move that a lot of the moment at least as we see it is ambiguous  in another case half a look in my brief case doesn't come to mind but in another case it's a case involving a life insurance policy a death and the question was do does  court said we're not going to require that the commission of the felony be the cause for the death and the wrong in the life insurance policy the part of the insurance policy required that the  kurd during the commission of a felony that's what happened in this policy in this circumstance were we realize it's a harsh result but we're going to enforce that exclusion because it's a legitimate means for the insurance company to limit its ri just like in this case this is this isn't something that insurance company just pulls out of the air to be a roadblock it's an important public policy that we have safe aircraft just like that that case  individual who dies and there's an exclusion in life insurance policy that excludes coverage what if the death of that let's do this on further inspection sort of loyally worldliness inspection you discover that the case is not in your brief you may submit a citation of the case by letter if you wish to respond in a one page letter you may do so once that letter idea that because dr jensen wasn't cited that this has some significance that the f a a requirements are you know it doesn't matter if you do your annual inspection that there's just evidence of that what counsel cites to in the brief is dr jansons affidavit where he speculates that the reason that i wasn't side and was because the best to make sure that their plane is safe but to look at the log book or don't fly and that's the same thing that this exclusion does don't fly that airplane unless you know that it's airworthy which includes having an annual and dr janssen talked about that in this deposition he said the annual is noted in the log book he should've gotten that out and looked at it and there's just so much evidence that contradicts this idea that he didn't know all of the salesman that sold in the plane told him and this is all on the record that that plane is going to need an annual in  july it's a factor of course in buying the plane because that cost more money that they have to do the annual i think there's three or four witnesses told him that his own father in law said of course the airworthiness requirement is well known and i'm sure my son in law knew that and so the idea that nobody cares whether he has an analyst faction is totally false that the annual inspection is the way that the particular accident it's against nevada's public policy to deny coverage to third party who was injured as a result of this accident which would not have been forestall they were prevented