with her decision on that score if it were straight to listen to what you have left to say she got it wrong in saying that there was evidence of her market value says that she clearly did hear it including there wasn't no we're saying that she clearly for the function that they've been using it they have to spend thirty thousand dollars or whatever it is you're saying that there's testimony from one of the borders of the truck who says that the fair market value of the truck is ninety thousand dollars the commentators tend to say though that the profits bomb in the admiralty may not comply in circumstances where the but i think one of the issues we have is here is whether the whether those losses are clearly ascertainable that was one of the issues that we raised in terms of the testimony was is that some of the jobs were lost but some of the jobs were actually completed and paid for and it was general proposition under the general maritime wall when you have a construct of total loss of a vessel that it goes back harder than fifty years probably that the limit at the ceiling of recovery is the fair market value of the vessel even in the event that you ha non negligent vessel there's a cabinet to that which i suggest is is is really comparable to our circumstance which is one as you pointed out which guarantee you have cargo in this case of business then you have to look elsewhere because it's just not analogous to and that is not the general maritime law that that last excuse me the fair market value exchange it lost profits are twenty far into the general maritime law there are a number of the flow of the oil they didn't want any product but what they did lose was three or four months of production time and so then they they could then turn around three or four months later sell that same oil that they that they had to stop but they were entitled the lost profits on the interest on those lost profits and so that's what they're saying is that's what i'm suggesting is analogous here were the sort of brothers had these three jobs they had in their pocket and they could not do those jobs well i think that it's not to say that it couldn't but there just isn't that long of the general maritime law in fact you have cases that suggest the opposite which is you know that you know that's a general rule over here when you're dealing with constructive to al dealing with cargo there are very clear in very limited circumstances in which it is allowable and they say well fishing vessels that you know even they were going to sail next week that that's that's sort of to attenuate you can't allow that  but the there is no case to the contrary that says it extends to the two non vessels you address the testimony that he refers to or the evidence in the record of one of the owners of the truck saying that it's worth ninety thousand dollars on the market yeah that's it that's a fair question for criticism rice where is is it was not a sophisticated witness we did not retain an expert on this issue i asked him that question and it was sort of a clumsy question a clumsy time he gave a clumsy answer policy which so i pointed out is you know i can under sure my property has no legal requirement that i have to insure for its full value so we can use that answer in response to that you know it's you're right in that the court didn't address in her  parts he testified in one set of circumstances i think it was respect to the emotion distress he felt and then secondly with respect to the value of the vessel so all of those all of those valuation questions came much later in that in the trial i can find a truck for ninety thousand dollars that was a you know that was a it was it was a kick in i don't think he understood the question frankly and when you consider you know all those other testimony that sort of really work comes down to the the so your brothers had a choice when they were given middle of which was their property carrier when they were made an offer to settle their property claim they were given a choice we can either pay you a thousand dollars or you can keep the truck and pay us the salvage value which we find to be fifteen thousand dollars this isn't in the pleadings that's not and it's not part of the record what is part of the record is that he was paid eighty thousand dollars price on proper care to say that the asking price them i think the answer is that they got it i guess you have to be a truck i'd appreciate the difference between a natural going to sterling truck and the rights lawyer one of his mack truck and when he couldn't when he realized he could not find a mack truck i think judge torsen describe  apples to apples with respect to the cost but just from a just from a brand perspective when he realized after he sacrificed his truck sold it to middle oak on the salvage value that he realizes there are no back trucks out there all i can get is which is ryan sawyer said i gave the truck to the insurance carrier in exchange for the eighty thousand dollars payment i don't think there's any document suggesting that the salvage value something part of that and i don't think there's any question that somehow the story of others retained the truck title for the  that that was not part of his part of his training so therefore this idea that he could say that the value of the truck at the time of the accident before the accident was was thirty saying i don't but i don't have the language in front of me to be able to comment and i will say that she heard ample testimony from first of all from medical expert that there was it was absolutely there was absolute causation andrew wished that ryan sawyer had physical manifestations of the experience on the truck so that was their medical expert but he also did not have any sort of experience with respect to causation between you know an infectious