this case involves a dispute over the ward carrier whatever this court concludes carrier means in this case it means the same thing in the grant of coverage provision as it does in the carrier dishonesty  not cited however did repeatedly assert the position that it has to be one or the other it can't be both which is what the magistrate judge held yeah i would have helped to have been pointed to morgan case that says you view is the carrier dishonesty endorsement controls in this case unless the court were to conclude that the word carrier does not include the thief if the court were to conclude that then there is no coverage in the first place end of story it's this is really frankly a very simple case so you're at this point you basically want us to remand for entry of judgment for fifty thousand dollars and a limitation of the attorney's fees that's correct your honor obviously we you know as an advocate i'd like remain for zero i understand my clients off of the fifty thousand from before the time those lawsuits  so yes we're the answer to a question is we are very we would be happy with fifty plus reversal of of the attorney's fees the other two points i want to make and i'll try to be brief and save my time for a bottle these are the ones that you did not raise but i'm sorry are these the points you did not raise no ok my other two points is the word carrier each time its use appears in quotation marks that that is a strong indication that whatever carrier means it means the same place in each place it's used this court had a similar issue in a case called tense home versus state farm and there the issue was the word section and in some places section was capitalized and in some cases section was not capitalized and this court said look there's a difference in means different things in different places we don't have that here what we have is a defined term which is of course the first rule of oregon laws of his that i find term use guess one thing though i mean you can see that i gather that sure that the term was defined but it was really trying to define it to resolve an issue that had nothing to do with this particular one right you know and it was to find his mode of transportation company and we think a thief is not a mode of transportation company a thief is not a company thief is not engaged in legitimate commercial transaction for consideration and therefore shouldn't be doing the company but i wrong on that and the court indulges in every inference and finds the word company to be ambiguous and finds that for purposes of coverage and includes the thieve then under the structure of the policy which i'll get to in a moment clearly the carrier endorsement in the carrier dishonesty endorsement would apply and would limit this loss to fifty thousand dollars and that's the last point i wanted to get to is just to explain the structure of this policy and how everything fits together the grant of coverage is on page sixty seven of the excerpts of record coverage is granted for private property for which you have a range transportation a carrier in quotes of the type described in the declarations you then move to part b of the policy which are the exclusions there is an exclusion for to be dishonest or criminal acts by any of the following whether or not acting alone or in collusion with other persons and to the carrier or its employees so you have a grant of coverage while property is in the possession of the carrier and there is an exclusion for dishonest sacks of the carrier if that were the end of the case and work that way if that was all that was in the policy then the be no coverage at all for this loss but you then turn to the care your dishonesty and then and it's very clear we will pay up to fifty thousand dollars in any one occurrence for water damage to covered property caused by a resulting from fraudulent dishonest or criminal act committed by a carrier so by that provision the insured purchased fifty thousand dollars of coverage which would otherwise be excluded under the two so clearly the concept of carrier is the same in all three places in the policy and the magistrate judge committed plain error by concluding here your meant one thing and one provision in the opposite in the of yeah i mean let's not ca if you look like you have a different print out the month of help me find the right page pacific seconds six twenty six to eighty two pacific second six twenty six  had no five in mind we think the court is warranted under the circumstances that says that rule and then it says at the bottom and where it's meaning in one instance is clear that meeting will be attached to it elsewhere in the contract and the trial court said i don't know what it means and so he construed it against the drafter which is what you're supposed to do so this isn't bedrock open and shut it has to be and where its meaning in one instance is clear and that's the problem here it's not clear there's right but whatever it means it means the same thing throughout that's the rule knowing and where it's leading is clear right i can't tell you what it means it's not clear right so it doesn't mean the same thing through no i don't think you're going to misreading the case that the general rule is that it's going to mean the same thing throughout unless the there's some indication that the parties intended it different meanings in different places ok so i don't know how you could argue that here when it's a defined term well let's talk about that i think you have to define the defining term of any motor transportation company bro because it says ne ne's and indiscriminate term it could be anything now you then have to construe the policy under the umbrella of the entire policy and this is a theft insurance policy and in the reply they say it's not but it is if you look at what he just read you a r sixty seven capital a coverage we cover loss in quotes to cover property that's what you and i are talking about from any of the covered causes of loss so what are the covered causes a loss you got to go back here to page e r seventy one sub six specify causes of loss means in it's limited to the following and it lists the list of mitchell whether calamities and in the embezzlement fraud that's what happened here there's coverage for that type of laws and so you're being asked then to construe terms to eliminate that coverage those kind of terms need to be in the exclusion section and presumably our court will as well but then i just don't see how when it comes time to looking at the exact same term exclusions you get around having to be stuck with the same definition that  we cited you the cases that analyze fraud by deception that in the context of the entrustment exclusion we think that that's the analytical framework you apply in this case of fraud by deception and you're allowed to do that because cover property means properties of others for which you in transit subjective have arranged transportation with the carrier they intended to arrange transportation with the real c n a transport systems l l c and that's the analysis provided in the in trust me exclusion cases look at what the insured intended to do otherwise you don't cover theft by deception if you just say you know in reality we were duped by an imposter to do this that's fraud in the deception so when you're when you're defining these terms you do so in the context in which it's used in the policy but also in the context of the overall policy that covers fraud by deception and so if you could say you see they want to focus on carrier we want to focus on the phrase for which you have arranged transportation with a carrier you in transit what they intend to do they intended to work with the real see any they were provided with the federal motor carrier number for the real a they signed a contract on paper with the real c n a it was signed by the gerry guy you know the imposter so from their perspective they're dealing with the real c n a and the real c n a is a carrier under let's see it's on your seventy two right so it's what it's talking about is the same carrier that you supposedly arrange for transportation with that triggered coverage in the first place so the one we intended to deal with right but going to treat that person is the carrier but then when you get to this provision that you're just about to focus on is talking about the same carrier that we're talking about for covered it is the carrier sort relates back so unless you find that you analyze it under the fraud by deceit and trust when exclusion and are allowed to look at and transits and hint of what they thought they were doing you're right so so that's w have you look at the policy and say they intended to deal with the real c n a that's a carrier and the real c n a didn't steal the goods so you get the full coverage because that's what carries through the intent of covering theft by deception and it doesn't take away over here in the left hand vaguely with terms nobody can agree on what they mean and i think also the judge i think you do construe against the insurance company and when they put forth two m sure that once you find an ambiguity you can construe that against the insurance company wherever it appears in the policy because the judge here was unable to give a pla clear meaning to that term due to the m q e you could mean a lot of different things and so we think you are allowed to apply the construe against the insured rule in both the coverage section and the exclusion your honor i couldn't have said it better myself whatever carrier means it means the same in both places the only conceivable way the carrier dishonesty endorsement does not apply in this case is if the court were to find the thief is not a carrier which cases there's no coverage so i apologize your honor the only way this court could find the carrier dishonesty endorsement does not apply would be if the court were to find that the thief is not a carrier in which case  no coverage at all that is the holding of schweiker schweikert was defining the word benefits which was in the grant of coverage and in that exclusion the court cited the rule about construing policies against insurance companies when the big us the court said whatever benefit means in one place it means in the other place as for the trust me exclusion we made a strategic decision not to raise that on appeal i be happy just the myth supplemental briefing that doesn't appear to be necessary was simply not relying on that but to address the point if the real c n a had shown up and their driver decided to take this load of stuff to las vegas and have a good weekend with it that's what the carrier dishonesty endorsement applies he'd be an employee of the carrier and there was a dishonest act involved their positions been they get six times as much coverage because they were duped all along instead of just doesn't