malpractise of a professional services the claims that were surgically against you name were by his stake of the developer and killer of the contractor and they were for negligence generally they were not limited to the provision of professional services and while the killer complaint did refer to generically as a provider of design services and that its claim are related in part like totally but in part to the rendering of services and our product the claim was not limited to just professional services what other bases were there be pursuing any number of possibilities could have occurred in a case like this virtually anybody that crosses the path of the project has been to it maybe for work that they did the work they didn't do statements they made statements they didn't make they could have tripped over a rafter and hurt somebody and that would have could have caused a plane we don't know looking at the four corners of the complaint or originally five all we know is that it is asserted that genetics  period and that resulted in property damage that's all we know as we see as we begin the killer complaint identified that among the acts of negligence maybe the in the provision of non were rented it all to mr hinge and the allen group not to the developer not to the contractor not to the homeowners there was no privity between genetic filed in any of these other parts now prior to two thousand and three the rule of law was the professional was a duty only can supply in two thousand and three an amendment to the code required that the architect could be held liable for negligence if his services did not meet the level of to genetic element related to professional services or something else but let me ask you is there any evidence and i realize of course we're trying to find coverage based on the allegations in the complaint but is there any evidence extrinsic or otherwise  services other than professional architectural services were provided there's no evidence in either direction consequently we're left with the four corners of the complaint which alleges negligence and property damage looking at the policy the policy provide for property damage caused by an accident there is nothing that establishes that this is professional services phoning that is being sued apart consequently there is no basis for a determination that there is no possibility of coverage on the policy and that's what burlington had to do in order to avoid its giuditta descent it had to come forward with evidence that excluded all possibility of coverage this it did not  now the court improperly required she needed to prove that the claims were not related to professional liability that's not genetics burden you know this burden is to show that the claims may be covered by the policy the question of whether there was an initial potential for coverage was never raised by growing broken conceded that there was a potential for coverage it simply maintained that and equipotential coverage was excluded by the professional exclusion and there's no question that professor the party who was supposed to provide the insurance basically had a lectern in writing not to provide professional negative coverage for generic is not correct well what happened is an offer was it is look the count to policy proposals to determine that his needs were satisfied by the commercial general liability policy it seemed to cover contractual liability completed operations and he didn't think that he needed anything more the policy form itself was titled consulting architects and engineers he's consulting architect and engineer it specifically said including completed operations there was no reference in the proposal or in the early report the declarations page that specifically brought his attention to an exclusion for the completed operations of professional liability he declined by the second policy very spencer relatively speaking because he felt  to have felt that this was his official policy the problem with the exclusions and we've brought this up rather extensively in our papers is that they are very deep in the policy and spot small of part without reference and without  linking them to the coverage provisions this is in the commercial general i believe coverage it does not refer to the proclamation likely coverage ergo a reasonable expectation would be that coverage under the general liability policy is excluded but whatever benefits are provided under the proper form i'm not it is certainly the reasonable expectation of the ensure that we are required to divine and when you look at the construct of this policy and that particular exclusion the mere fact exclusion exist doesn't necessarily mean that the insurer was brought to the attention that all professional liability was excluded on the policy particularly when he paid for and was sold improper on that explicitly says we give you coverage for the stack of things particularly for services provided to you on your behalf but if your argument is accepted wouldn't the insurance carrier under the circumstances in every t v set to say we're providing this basic liability coverage for premises but work secluding professional negligence when june effect i have to say that at the bottom of every page what would be so wrong with that legal issue for interpreting that process but the court also in fact we got we got to the court trial because the court initially in response to the summary judgment felt that there were some factual issues that need to be cleaned up and the issue of contract interpretation yes it's an issue of law but it was it was a question of fact as to how the policy was put together and what was intended and and i think that's the main focus of with what this hearing is all about so again i would say that as i argued in the there are in my mind three separate and distinct reasons why they're the burlington policy does not provide coverage for this for this claim in summary the first one is that quite simply  insured for all purposes for its own direct liability it was an additional insurer for a very limited scope of coverage namely if five it was being sued because of work if that had have it your have each did for it and that was not the situation get back to that and second the second reason is because the policy quite clearly excluded coverage for completed operations liability and third as we as was the focus of the council's discussion just prior but you know some states have what they call a four corners rule which is you have to stop at the police and the pleadings are potentially you know covered then you stop there if they're not then you can stop there as well california requires insurance companies to go beyond pleas and to look at the strains of evidence and some cases that hurts the insurance company in other cases i think it could help and in this case the strings of evidence it was clear that the only thing that that fact that was the theory that you know really to never said don't you know we want to hear and if we don't want to hear what you're really sort of up in burlington said you were sued because you were designed professionally and at no time did anyone come back to front and say no that's not true we got sued because we drove a truck on the premises or we got sued because a we tripped over a ladder and somebody you know in a very damaged property that stressed company as as the lower court noted correctly is not required to go out and investigate all kinds of theories of why believe it might have been pled but weren't especially when the insured in the tender says we were hired as a design professional and that's you know the only thing it could have provided to the no time said to anyone you know we don't want to hear that you know it's sad and this is what this is how we saw it last i guess what i'm really interested in is what was the evidence that tied it to  result of professional conduct well first of all you have the allegation and at least one of the cross complaints that says it said it was the calico like this specifically said  the requirement that the that the insurer prove that it is and insured to begin with because if you're not insured then you're not entitled to the coverage and in this case in order for genetic filtering to be insured you would have to prove professional negligence is not in it and occurrence so when you have a policy that excludes professional liability exposure proving that there was an occurrence would be the insurance version i don't want to lose sight of the fact that the policy also clearly understatedly excluded coverage for completed operations and there was a there was an a and the doors went for that that was clear and distinct on its face and that's a very important issue an issue in this case because the property damage arose well after the insurance work was completed and so it's are irrespective of the of the professional i believe solution if the court finds that there was no coverage for completed operation then again you don't even have to get to the to the allegations the complaint you don't have to get to the to the professional liability solution you can stop simply at the completed operations with i see my time as a thank you i do have one question with regard to  we do look at the four corners of the complaint in california but the insurer can look beyond the four corners of additional information is available in this case the only additional information that was provided was provided by the insured genetic identified himsel discovery there was no discovery in the case at all and all this was subject to a case manager in order everybody was brought in the immediately shuttle everybody out into mediation program there was no discovery that was  exterior appearance is that design intent was being followed in the process it was the architect of record jeanette he did some things for which he which undertook to do some things for genetic ultimate sign off on all the work advised him of all changes that were going to be required to keep them abreast consequently the additional insured endorsement even under their narrow construction i don't agree with an errant construction still did provide for services there's no extrinsic evidence on what services were actually performed what the evidence exists is they were hired to do design consultancy services there is no evidence as to what they actually did or didn't you or what it does will things that are unrelated to professional services they might have done they simply nothing in the record and for the insurer to slam the door shut and say we're not going to cover you because notwithstanding the fact the complaint says negligence and property damage because we've got this exclusion on professional services and because you are an architect or design consultant there is a huge logical gap remember it is what they did not what they were hired to do that is relevant if what they did amounts to negligence and is not related to professional services there's coverage but there's no record of the lot we don't know what they were accused of having and as far as the insured generally told them in showing that it was an additional insured entitled to a policy coverage they identified we didn't abide that we were an additional insurance we provided the certificate we showed them the endorsement we established a premium was paid for the indigenous insured endorsement and then they finally relented and said ok it's not enough for a certified file but we acknowledge it so we've done everything that we can do with shown a claim as being a property damage it's out of acts of negligence and we are an insurance policy the burden shifts they have been shown and they cannot show that he claims are limited to professional services actually ren