you this court should reverse the decision below because it relied on a categorical rule about exceptions to exclusions not affirmatively creating coverage we believe that categorical rule is contrary to massachusetts law as i'll explain the possible in this insurance dispute is a transportation company called performance halls of various commodities including petroleum  such as gasoline and diesel fields it was an accident in february of last year when one of performances tanker trucks overturned in north so in new york that's it resulted in gasoline and diesel spilling  roadway and the adjacent reservoir the damage from that has been extensive almost three million dollars spent to date and those efforts and the remediation is ongoing the question here is whether there's coverage one is the total pollution exclusion we believe be overturned out of cause when read properly and construing the policy as a whole provides coverage and we believe the rider to the policy ten indorsement and it's titled special hazards and fluids limitation indorsement there's no dispute the general star prepared indorsement  excludes coverage for certain types of special hasn't but therefore exceptions referenced in the writer one of those is for fuel that are spilled because of an overturned that respect we believe the two issues the st one has been impossible for exceptions to exclusions to provide coverage regardless of what they say regardless of how the policy structure we believe that's what the district court found and that was an error the nd question is if it's possible for language and or i don't like this one to provide coverage does this particular provision actually do that  generally read the main body of the policy and then you read any endorsements that that coverage if you want to know what's excluded from the potentially broad language of that coverage you go when you look at the exclusions and limitations that's how you read a policy generally so if we get to an exclusion and it says a is excluded but then it carves out an exception to that exclusion we generally don't think of that as a grant of coverage that's how i read the district court's rationale that may well have been the rationale that that's not what the opinion states that has a sentence which says exceptions to exclusions do not provide coverage period  and there may well be a middle ground and in fact we think that in fact is the appropriate rule under massachusetts law and there is no such categorical boller two exceptions creating coverage and you have to look at it in context though in contest why would that presumption be be a bar to you because this says this exclusion of the document itself the endorsement refers to itself as an exclusion and it simply it says the a whole and not just that specific language there are more than a dozen riders like this one dollar fifteen cents of them have in the title the word exclusion and if you look at each of those fifteen all those  do is exclude coverage they don't in fact provide any this particular endorsement does not have the word exclusion in the title number two if you look at the text of the actual endorsement there are other reasons why an object to be reasonable reading of this would indicate this is not an ordinary exclusion with just exceptions instead some of the exceptions the exceptions can provide coverage so take a look at paragraph four  paragraph force that has that coverage under this item for which is for short term drilling fluid event will be available so the endorsement in this exception says coverage will be available and that we think is a signal that the indorsement is providing coverage in the pendant of other clauses and insuring agreement in the main body of the form similar to the east hampton which had a similar setup where there was an exception where there was an exclusion for collapse but there was a starbucks i see that point but i think the response in so perhaps you could direct is that doesn't a negative inference arise that for if we accept that reading that for actually provides some coverage as opposed to provides a car though it only referring to coverage under this i am for coverage is available but only for x y and z because twelve and three are not subject to those limitations the other point i would make ron when you looking at this and as a whole you also have to look at how other exceptions to exclusions have been considered and what general store says about them and if you turn back to appendix forty two this is the terrorism that's if the workers that you cannot have coverage being you've presented two different arguments to us one is as a matter of law in massachusetts doesn't say that all exclusions must be read as  not being a source of coverage but then you make an independent argument which is that if you look at this particular policy in language there is at least ambiguity and under massachusetts law if there is at least ambiguity it is read again see insurer and there may  be issues as to which evidence is required as i understand your nd argument it starts with the premise that when they wanted something to be an exclusion they knew how to state it as an exclusion they did not state this as and exclusion they stated this as and dorismond endorsements can add to coverage or they can take away from coverage that's pretty basic insurance you say they read too much into the term limitations in the endorsement you would then go down and you look at the auto clause and we've heard your arguments about that so again my question goes to what is the remedy that you are seeking i had understood that you were not seeking entry of judgment in your favor although perhaps you construed in favor of coverage and for the other reasons set forth in the brief as a matter of law the risk coverage there would not be a need for further proceedings to make that determination alternatively you're correct on we are saying at a minimum at a opponent has raised and argument that  they can put on evidence both about custom and usage and evidence that your client could well have paid a little more and bought a policy which clearly provided this coverage and you chose not to do so so your opponents even if there is a thought to be ambiguity on the face of the they have is not a statement from their politics yours may counsel i did not phrase it as judgment as a matter of law i phrased it as it goes back for further review on the question of ambiguity and whether there is any other evidence that could be permissibly introduced on the question of ambiguity and you just said the record was not fully developed on that issue because the district court didn't think it was necessary to allow that develop and that record that i apologize i misunderstood save the remainder for my rebuttal thank you thank you reservoir is directly at the heart of what the pollution engine p c i and utica are trying to create coverage for this accident by looking at a separate provision the special has an endorsement that the special hazard couple of ways the st one is substantive and one is sort of textual the substantive calling is that again we are looking at the touchstone of what in objective lead us mobile insurer would think does so i want to address directly what you're asking but i think this gets back to the larger point mr ahmed started with about there being a so called general rule that exceptions that exclusion cannot create coverage i think that this is a fairly allowed our coverage the question is whether that's an independent coverage france or whether it is simply a limitation on the scope of the exclusion and i think that's the heart of what this case is about so with respect directly to coverage is going to be left and what coverage is going to be taken away but that doesn't mean that that is somehow an affirmative additional ensuring agreement in addition to the ensuring agreement of the policy and this is the reason why should you say this exception will apply do you mean that there is coverage in certain instances correct because the exception limits the operation of this exclusion a objective really reasonable ensured sink that this was an exclusion although it's not labeled that  limit to endorsements ok so that you are saying there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever about what the term limited i ask your opponent the question about remedy he said st we would like to court to reverse and enter judgment in our favor that there is coverage but failing that and he relies on the rule that ambiguity is a normal way construed against the writer of the policy then his fall back the district court really didn't get into that a do i take it that your fallback position if you don't get a firm and say is that the matter should be rem case but that doesn't help them because in that case the parties agreed that the additional coverage section applied there was no need for the court to delve into what might or might not constitute an affirmative grant of coverage because they are agreed that the additional coverage section was what was offered there and that is the reason why we dealt with that case and again the question about what  easthampton we think the best case on this that case had an exception to a conclusion this court found it provides coverage and then when the argument was made that a more general exclusion was the winter exclusion negates that coverage that was specifically granted this court said no specific controls over the general and the same logic follows here stolberg doesn't address this issue because that court found th two exclusions could co exist so there was no conflict to resolve and contrast here if exception to in fact provides coverage as we contend that is that isn't direct conflict with an exclusion that light of expectations like isn't it a click presumption to say that if you're looking for coverage you look at the coverage terms and you generally don't look for coverage in the limitations or exclusions know massachusetts case has created such a presumption and the reason i think it's not a good rule is because you have to look at the policy as a whole and this case is a perfect example this isn't indorsement with the word limitation but fifteen other endorsements with the words exclusion and that difference has to mean something in general star and the district court below or here as given us no reason for that distinction in addition to that a presumption would not make sense here because the result general store wants it specified specifically and the terrorism exclusion why was it not done here no answer and then finally the exchange you had your honor with general s counsel general starr's counsel i think is very interesting she ended up saying coverage will be available means the exception will be available she agreed with your suggestion there well if that's what that language means why didn't general starr see that why did they say coverage will be available no explanation for that and then the last thing i want to get out is this idea of if this is a standard policy or not general starr was very careful with the words they chose they said this is not a many a script policy but there is no evidence in the record they haven't pointed to any that this is a standard form there's no example of other organizations using it there is no case given the complexities you're the policies that beat us and that can be flushed out in the district court to discovery and particularly in a case like this where even general stars council says this is a fairly complex  quote unquote so i think at a minimum if the court does not reverse for into a judgment in our favor the court should remain and to let these issues get flushed out with the appropriate discovery including expert testimony on what's