i think the primary issue in this case as it is in i think several particular in this case has to do to the effort that we expend to launch to a  byzantine analysis of fission proximate cause at the cost of initial examination of the plain language of the contract meaning the contract says we will insure against any any appears to be clear to me and it appears to be whether it is the most important cause a loss in the garvey efficient proximate caus or whether it is one of the concurrent cause of losses as long as it is a covered cause of loss i believe that the very first paragraph of the that you have a very broad coverage provision doesn't help you unless you also show that you are outside the school yesterday so i don't think anybody's argue with you that the first sentence is very broad what i have is i have an exclusion but i also have a cover because it isn't excluded so does the fact that there are two concurrent causes one of which is necessarily trigger an efficient proximate cause analysis if the initial clause says we'll do it for any cover cost lost you lost me there i am i'm sorry hard being a little more concrete yes or i will and i got it i got to meet you lost me to one of the exclusions very specific exclusions here is we will not pay for loss caused by a resulting from rain to property which is in the case as it rain is a covered cause of loss the issue here was whether or not the initial contractor's negligence of not sufficiently covering the roof the discussion of the whole analysis of the fission proximate cause dates back to the civility larvae issue where there was a situation where there was an exclusion and there was one that was included and the courts couldn't figure out which one was go we will pay for any direct physical loss to covered property caused by or resulting from any covered cause of loss you continue down and if you continue down to paragraph five of a which the fines covered causes of los negligence is actually how about the fact that the way their main guy then it's because of the contents of the negligence i think that that would be relevant here i think that would be important your honor to the extent that the contract didn't say from the rain within the meaning of this policy and i don't have personally any difficulty with that your honor because it is what i'm saying is that the the rain is the cause make give the negligence exclusion any effect whatsoever show me a list and swear something would be caused by negligence is possible for the contractor do a perfectly good to two to perform according to the standard of care to have covered the builder to have attempted to do that which would cover the building but then sixteen where the contractor would not be found liable for negligence or are found to have rigid duty of care but the rain comes in any way you can fight the hypothetical all you want you have to find a situation where there's no i wouldn't you have to start with negligence ok that's a given because that's my part of my question i realize that you could have you could have a loss without negligence and i would have a different case and i would be a different answer to a different question but my question presupposes those negligence and the negligence in some way causes maybe not proximate cause or whatever but you know some way is a causal link changing a single one of the powers in under this policy how would you ever have a situation where negligence is involved in causing a loss where your arguments would not vitiate the negligence exclu contractors putting up a wall the wall falls down the damages that i need to live believe that the owner incurs to me is not going to be included under this policy because the exclusion in the contractors the contractor negligence is excluded for affirmative acts of negligence like the contractor drives the truck into the building or knocks the wallet to you if you say but wouldn't cover negligent omission no sir i'm not saying that either i'm saying that if they did that if there is an omission  an omission to do something which causes the type of damage which is not an additional cover because once in this contract but well what isn't covered everything is covered falls down hit somebody on the head ok that is not a cover and you know let's say that person turns out to be the key guy the architect who you know so he can complete the you know the g by an unknown cause from the construction site next door that would be covered with next so the falling of brick is not something that is that is i believe in of the scenario that you provided there would not be coverage around because there was only one cause of the last war i guess i was looking for a situation where there would be i'm so there would not be coverage and i think what i'm saying argument and that is be one we will not pay for a lost cause directly or indirectly by any of the following and assume that that's contractor's negligence by a covered cause of loss results we will pay for that resulting loss situation the circuit decided that the loss from the rain question in the section what i'm advancing your honour's is that this really is this language in your contract is a section which is the which is the to cover properly a building is a resulting loss intent on your honor in fact this sort of damage was specifically excluded in this court used the fact that the term not the rain damages a cover cause of wasp is addressed is addressed to resolve intent by their statement that rain damages a covered cause of loss suggesting is that it is that is that going off on the determination as to why there was coverage intent l as some interest for us but the primary level of interest has to do with whether or not rain damage from the failure of a contractor properly to cover a building constitutes a resulting loss and it's appears clear that states that it is it that term is so broad garvey itself uses the what is the policy regarding the garbage court was interpreting uses the word all risks so that's arguably just as brought in the garbage court still south it to u accidental lost or damage hotel that's the lot that's still lost anybody ever talked about there is there's never been a suggestion of a resulting loss a wall falling over as a result of the water intrusion or oil settlement problem as a result of the of the  electrical fire those are the kinds of things that would result would be losses that result from the initial blast so i think what's happening here is a lot of confusion over the over different separating causes and separating  the cause is something that according to the california supreme court is something that you line up all your cars and you pick the efficient proximate cause the predominant cars and that's what that's where this exclusion comes in and only the only way to bringing this exception into play is to find a resulting loss and there just has not ever been any suggestion of one in this case in evidence exclusion but if that while falls over on a car then that the damage to the car is a resulting loss so they would cover that the insurance companies don't want to pay for a contractor you know making  well the water they got into the walls could have gotten into an electrical box and concepts shorten cause an electrical fire and if to the extent fire caused damage on top of the damage that was already there that would become a that would be a resulting lo well tend to like every insurance coverage cases depending completely on the contract and that contract just has no bearing to this case there's the language is completely different the reasoning of the court was completely different there's just no there's just no basis for we do not insure under any coverage for any loss consisting of one or more of the items below there is no reference to the causation or the last it just as we do not insured really coverage for a loss consisting  ok paragraph three we do not insure under any coverage for any last consisting of emphasizing the word consisting of one or more of the items i'm emphasizing items because the kind of policy refer specifically to causes and laughters this policy i'm suggesting is big from the get go because it doesn't it doesn't talk about cas doesn't last as it just talks about consisting of one of the items and then it lists the items to include the contract sixty two we're at the end of that quote under three and they they add the exception language once again as the exclusion with an exception but if accidental direct physical loss results from i don't see three in three v which are the contractor going to find against the insurance company on those grounds he said it was the inexact policy language that led to their conclusion so that just has no relevance to the kind of policy that doesn't read in that fashion a for a lost cause fire resulting from any of the following and then it lists the cause and so i am i am suggesting that the ambiguity of the use of the word items and consisting of is what makes part of what makes  potential policy says but it backs down direct physical loss results it doesn't even narrow it down to having to be a covered l of what a resulting loss was and i think the contract provides the provision in the contract that is before us today talking about resulting loss in light of the identical language