conclusion the first road would be to take on the issue of whether your exposure or actual injury in fact is required to trigger a c g o policy in this case but left over one just you as to where the exposure or injury card was the right test in a bottle now so i'm not i would think that the injury was when  yes there has to be proof that he was injured in the fire and the reason for that is that the science tells us that every one of us has thousands of us bestest fibers in our body you know and you don't get sick from the first reading of it you get sick after a while of exposure and it's not exactly clear but what trinity did in the first place their first attempt at this according to their own claims adjustor exactly they are located just over all hundred policies which is two and a half million dollars worth of coverage and they paid two point four million so that they were only barely about to exhaust those they change their mind when they got into this litigation and try to sta in one policy in spite of to to my client and those are the complicated questions down the first row that we're talking about because you have to you might want to certify it to the texas supreme court or if you way you have to be sick to even file a claim towsley change that in two thousand and five so you know this is talking about some claims of preceded that and it's not what the injured person has to prove but it's insurance applies most of these companies have insurance for every year it's just a matter of you and your your attacking what if you're insured well we are well worth the excess we're tracking what the primary a not really if they want to exhaust their policy even when they didn't need to pay it that's fine but when you come to our policy we still have a requirement that they be injure the person be injured so there were  this is just a matter of how we allocate between the primary policies which ordinarily you would think would go first and the excess policies which we and that's that your first point and that point really enters me said the injury in fact that's the same policy it's the same with current language and they leave it open it's almost as if they sent it in the push to the next time you get one of these cases of involved personal injury send it over there and of course the reason is this court can determine what it thinks texas law is but it's not binding on anybody but the federal district court of the under and rather than take them down that road i think could be a good case to certified to and that is exactly what we have trying to do you said well you didn't attach all the underlying lawsuit so they're all on the record whether we attach them or they attach them to district court head before all of the underlying cases and there's buildings and so on on the a few occasions somebody would run into the side of the building and caused us to go around in there for you know the the pollution exclusion goes out the window do they  actual facts that they ran into it on this day and this caused it they don't they're really going like you know the titanic hit the iceberg on this day and this is not i mean if this is just kind of knowledge in the industry that this happens from time to time well i mean that they were talking about anecdotes but they were not tying them to a time or a place or who was there on that day that could have been injured by that notice that we remain for a determination of whether there is evidence you know but the fact is she was sudden and accidental exception and then that and they did not come forward to your honor from those with any attempt to tie that to any time period because he you know if you're going to do the pollution exclusion i guess you're going to presume that this without deciding that th somebody that can remember the twenty some thirty some odd years ago was the time when the crane ran into the wall i think that's going to be pretty much impossible right that i mean but even that theory that the crane running into the wall is what is this is this sudden thing that causes this rather than over it because the cases are legion that it's over the time period long term exposure that causes these conditions in these workers that's true of course it sort of goes back into a little bit of the first point of it but let's not talk about the first four list say it is exploding they trinity has put in as much proof that all five of their years  of policies underlying ours and in fact the next couple of years were they were on top of themselves in terms of access and the primary they put in proving that you could have picked any one of those years or all of them as i say like they did it for his complaint is primarily that you wasted a lot of your money the truth is your honor it is that part of the record how did ours that developed in the record it's developed in the record that in two thousand they were told that trinity had exhausted and would rest of the come in there and take over and for seventeen years they have refused to come in to defend to pay any rules are asking this court to adopt they had pretty much no insured would ever be able to meet your burden to obtain coverage for asbestos mine my company stayed in the they're arguing that this court is old where a national i would keep exception to the court being aware because if you actually look at don's building supply the supreme court case the latest and greatest  we have on this issue the supreme court on page twenty h s again what so some courts call the exposure rule may actually be what others would call the injury in fact rule that's what makes twenty eight of  and if you take one held all to calm you down that's not going to do anything but it's the continual taking of out all by mr card data so over three or four year period that led to the condition marxist and then you're saying that that injury is a continuing injury which i believe under the medical literature it is all right and we look at their definition injury includes disease ok did you did trinity leave the exception of this turning to the coalition exclusion ok i'm sorry i'm interested to plead the exception to the pollution up on land in the atmosphere or water course there are cases we've raised so we judge them you know agree that if there is pollution let's say i have one of these gaskets operating over here and there's always much that comes up but that is not into the insurance services office which traps insurance policies when they follow the pollution policy with the pollution exclusion with the texas department of insurance they followed with that very much explanatory  basically can look at it and see if it's there but if it is there how would it apply if the text of the contract doesn't include this exception well i just generally rely on common exceptions you have to actually be in the t breathe in the hairspray and it causes some problem to your loan from the inhalation of that well if that were true if they were correct the hair spray company never ever would have products liability coverage for the most exposure that is green breathing in the the hair spray and what it would do to your loans because that is one i think so said it's of five hundred thousand that trudie have for the eighty three eighty four policy now getting back to well their argument is that they have to play then they would be able to subjugate against you how do you wind up with all your money back we don't we aren't i mean where you had coverage well we've never asked for all her money back we're not asking for all her money back here we're greedy that the five hundred thousand dollars that we had a policy limits for eighty three eighty four we paid for that were also the three that all of the fish sauce that occurred prior to the time that the trinity policy exhausted that charges well on top of the five hundred thousand they should have been paid well after two thousand trinity had its policy limits of its five hundred thousand for the policy here that was selected by the insurer and our limits had been exhausted you've done a good job that every time they're not trying to ask you about whether this is a fact issue on your defense you point out some other reason that they haven't met their exclusion so we still haven't talked about whether this is a fact issue on your court of first like to talk about the burdens on the pollution exclusion so really trinity's in her saying these cases do not arise out of the release of those best to us that's what the whole case is about the record is with the petition with the descriptions by judge folsom and by the special master to which those parts of nobody objected and that these cases have to do with as best as inhalation is best is obviously has to be released before it's inhaled this court held in the enormous case that we have cited that even if carbon dioxide is trapped in an apartment and doesn't get outside that still release release into the atmosphere i actually looked up what the atmosphere is and a little long since times the atmosphere started and ground level there are various names for all the layers of the atmosphere past the stratosphere to the exosphere but it starts at the surface of  so release into the atmosphere is released into the air that we all breathe is had to be released for these people to breathe the sudden accidental i don't recall the evidence at all put into the record about breaking were tearing but you know what it has to be both sudden and accidental so if they intentionally tore or cut a gasket to make it fit something which is perfectly normal it's not accidental they did that on court for all of that out in the c b i bush's national unique case in which it held the pollution exclusion is unambiguous and we're not going to look at what everybody says they thought it meant we're going to look at the document and look at the read this stuff you're injured we put in expert testimony to the contrary the record one nine hundred twenty to twenty seven where our experts said it's a long term exposure that caus everyone who breeze and some as best as is injured best white this quarter and i am not sick because living in big cities we breed as best as all of our lines from breaks from buildings from all sorts of things it's there's a certain low you can breed and not get sick these people who are in the charge that the special master perk together some of them nine hundred eighty three was the last one of their working years some of it is the middle of their working life some had barely started and so there's no way to tell the this particular as best as they might have breathed was was a problem in fact a continental casually case in new york that we cite on page thirty six now you know i think that i'm not sure if it were it any other question was the pollution exclusion i believe is the way to go it's clear it's an ambiguous i think you could render judgment on it at