the court below committed two separate errors in holding that coverage for the loss of the gold coins was art but invalid payments exclusion clause st of all it gave too broad of a definition to the causation term of the policy that being the words d consequent upon and it then ignored how the loss was actually caused by u p s of shipping errors which is covered under the policy nd and separately misapplied the concurrent causation doctrine again b find both in order to reverse d because they're based on alternative arguments and i'll start with the st day or the district courts misinterpretation d and misapplication of the causation term in the exclusion so the st question for the court is what level of causation is required by the phrase consequent upon handing over you need valid payments exclusion cause they're really three possibilities here the st one extreme is but for conservation where sexually any minor event can be a cause if the loss wouldn't of curd otherwise that's the broadest and the easiest to establish if the other extreme is proximate cause which requires cause in fact and foreseeability it's the hardest to prove in we're not claiming that this particular exclusion requires d a showing proximate cause and then there's a middle ground between those d two which requires a substantial nexus or significant cause away the court below chose but for it held that the proximate checks are but for cause of the loss but that's the wrong test because consequent upon requires a more demanding level of causation than just but for we know that from the case law  level of causation is associated with policy provisions that use words like arising from or rising out of that's the texas supreme court in utica national that's this court in the red ball case now that phrase arising from is is indeed used in some of the exclusions in this particular policy but it's not in the exclusion we're talking about our exclusion uses the words d consequent upon that has to have a different meaning from a in this court has interpreted the result of to require a substantial nexus a significant causal link a substantial factor something like that between the event and the loss it's d really the middle ground test and it's similar to the black's law dictionary definition of consequent which is a natural result or d a necessary effect so then the next question for the court is whether the loss here was the result d of handing over the property to u there resulted in the loss when dylan gage handed over the property didn't hand it over to just any rd d party handed over to its trusted and shipping agent u p s d at that point no loss resulted in no loss even should have resulted and that's because dillon gage did everything by the book you waited for the checks to clear waited about two weeks before even turned the packages over t p s importantly it instructed u p s to d deliver the patches directly to the correct  he didn't ask for identification for any of the packages and without these errors and omissions the the property would not have been rerouted it would not have been retrieved from the u p s facility by this unknown person and usual isn't that what happened here yes except then the question is what does consequent mean it means the result d of it was the last the result of handing over the property  only upon a signature and identification if all that had happened like it was supposed to have like delegation instructed u p s to do there would have been no loss and remember the exclusion begins where the words lost the independent cause that what makes perfect and distinguished goes if it falls within these category of cases where the covered event happens st and it's not independently actionable at all without the excluded event happening happen and those things were d were combined in other cases they cite you have a situation where d the corporate event was d derivative or is actually the same as the excluded that's not our case at this case that that the loss was not the result d of the fraudulent check but it was the result of handing it over to u b s who then messed up with its multiple shipping errors so it was the shipping errors which of course are covered satisfy the consequent upon requirement the loss would still be covered ready under a correct application of the concurrent causation doctrine because we have what we have are ready two separate and independent but four dollars costs exactly like what you case two separate and independent but for causes in that case the court said even if the excluded event didn't happen to all the excluded event there being a professional  malpractise basically d in the design of supplants you still would have had you still have a separate independent covered event in the form of drilling or it was capable of causing the last think the question that you really need to ask  position doctor is whether the covered cause isn't the type that could independently caused the loss without the excluded cause that's really the test of those facts did not exist in the earlier it's those because the cover  no rerouting the signatures and the id and then if you think about it the shipping errors and the fraudulent checks and go totally separate actors involved totally separate acts totally separate locations totally separate with it without the u p s shipping or so that's why i assert that there is coverage vision that tracking number which is extremely important because that's what the criminal is used to change the location the criminals would never have had the tracking number without the checks that are in the bank agree that all of this is a scene all everything that happened starting in late two thousand and seventeen through the actual possession of the coins was a complicated scheme by some very astute criminals and we're going to go through that in a nd but both of us agree that it's a scheme where we disagree entirely is that you can break the chain of causation at any one event none of these events could have timeline of events so they do have is that the next thing that happens as a criminal is gonna go and pick up the stolen checks they actually have to go get them from the bank they then have to get into the brand writes multiple online accounts they have to have th one of these accounts which they then transferred to another pal and this is all related to the st loss but the exact same thing happened with the nd loft but that is different accounts that then they were able to transfer large sums of lead i e driver's license and it fraudulent signature again this was done at the very beginning the assumption that this would not have been done later on in the process again is without merit january t the packages so what we have here well mr lavender talks about a total separate fund from the moment the banks and checks clear the banks and billingsgate started this whole process it's less than twenty four hours from where the criminals picked up the points and again book parties have gone to great lengths to agree that this is a criminal scheme the entire point of the criminal scheme was to take possession of the goal was to steal  what might have happened what could have happened but what not what did not actually happen there also ignoring the crucial fact that there are other possible outcomes under their current analysis they're crux of the argument is the last one the pap in but the reality is that speculation because that's assuming the criminals didn't have a plan b that's assuming the criminals didn't have any other way to gain possession of the gold coins the gold at the parents house and their front yard they couldn't have held up the truck they knew exactly what was going on because they had the tracking numbers and they knew the policies look at the actual perhaps criminal picked up the gold coins three minutes three minutes after it arrived at the u p s location to say that they would not have been able to pick it up if you b s and got exactly what they were supposed to do i'm sorry if this if this goes against a apologize for the again or her loss of power in our building in the eruption of this argument and we all have to adjust to the new realities we'll see a much longer they last mr lemon june you have gore we well we did actually judge barksdale we were debating about the definition of what consequent upon me we we argued that it means a significant cause for a substantial cause i think we depart the label proximate cause on it i'm i'm content to tell you want people that were not purging proximate cause which requires a level foreseeability we're urging something in between a substantial factor a significant causal link or something of that nature and we did say that below now the problem is when they talk about policy they talk about well you've handed over the property to a rd party but actually the exclusion sys resort from handing the property over to rd party we have the property over to a trusted shipping agent u p s to the last resort from that out no it did not know what did not because when we handed the property over to you p s we gave  case you cannot they have the burden of the stablish in conclusively and as a matter of law that they were at a loss resulted from handing over the property to you p s they have not come close to establishing that because the redirect the packages to the u b s shipment the skillet in alabama that never should have happened the instructions were to disable that function so that the property would have gone directly to the real home address of the real kind of trammell that actually they're the ones speculating about what would have happened there after they were talking about the criminal you know it intercepting the packages at the home now there is no evidence that all they have met their summary judgment burden of that all the evidence is conclusive and fifty five testifies again without dispute that indicate when when the groom this discovered there were six women yes they discovered that i believe  delivery never should have happened because the st one should have gone directly to dr bramlett who to foil the plot the idea that there could have been some sort of criminal could have carried out this scheme to the very end independently capable could've caused the loss independent of the excluded event that's the articulation in the wilbur of this case there you have two separate and independent but four causes both independently capable of causing the loss that's exactly what we have here so i'm encouraged to court to look at the will pros case all of their cases have the timing flipped their cases begin with a covered event which could not have caused the loss without the excluded