that had to have happened at least by august sixth because that's the date when the health department came out to see how bad it was and take the samples we just collected the samples we did right all the results of those samples  know we came out and took the samples and somebody had to tell them there was a problem for them to come out and take the samples they not just wander around taking water samples so why why isn't august sixth of the very latest when the inception of loss could have occurred because really transmitted into the tower to the transmission imprints but on the letter august tenth there is nothing because it was it was made it was not even sent by fax and this is that this is the confusion created by  on august eleventh two thousand and one that was the first line  installing any kind of backflow preventer without hyper quoting ating the tower three system and without superheating the power to the system and this was only cause which caused legion allow great into our two systems to the question here is because every time we hear from a from factory neutral that there there was no physical damage the contaminants in a dense they can be there can be any substance or chemical which can cause damage our irritation to some of the human beings shrinkage item number three changing color flavor pasture or finish all these if you look at how this policy is framed all these seventy five nevada three zero one that if the if the insurer has to bring its keys under one of the exclusion the burden is on the insurer that burden does not sh control they're not talking about faulty construction in any other building which is not even controlled by any other person not tomorrow there is something some excavation is going on in my neighbor's land and as a result of that mean what if that's true what do you make of the phrase in the pouncing page twenty two of the policy where it says faulty workmanship material construction workers and from any cause what do you do with from any cars broader than just within the control of the owner your owner and when they say any cause does not mean that the cost of which is happening on under some other person's control good morning joyce one factory mutual and i will try to be brief i think i will address the discussion about the statue of limitations since that was discussed first s property and investigate claims of health risk and take tests and so on and so forth and by faxing that to polo towers troy goes i think it evidences that the discussion referenced on the cover sheet had to do with the health authorities authority to go on to the towers property and conduct the testing that had already been conducted as your honor pointed out on august sixth we argued that august tenth was the date that polo towers unquestionably had notice and appreciation if you will that they had a serious legionella problem on their property but i think that arguably if we had done more discovery we could have argued at a much earlier date because the reason this even came up is that people became ill in the spring of two thousand and one i think march and april of two thousand and one so there's some question whether they might have had notice much earlier but we felt that to give the benefit of the doubt given the amount of discovery that we had august tenth was probably the safer date and even if you give them the extra day which pushes it to august eleventh when council concedes they definitely had notice and that was the day that the health authorities were passing out flyers on their property and so on i don't believe that helps them because the statute of limitations in the policy says that the action has to be filed within a year not  by a year and the there are cases that actually say that gives you three hundred sixty four days remarkably but that is the law and in order to be within a year they still would have had to file  and i don't want to belabor the contamination point either because of course it's briefed to death in all of our papers and the argument from the motion in the district court is actually attached in the excerpts of record  basically this is a very common sense case and issue and it's about whether legionella bacteria and water is contamination under an insurance policy under the pla meaning of the word contamination and common sense i think would tell everyone in this room that it is and that was evidenced by plaintiff's admissions and their requests for admission by plaint the many admissions and descriptions of the situation as contamination not that that's dispositive but it does demonstrate that everybody has an understanding of the plain meaning of the word contamination as it applies to this case and legionella in water is very simply contamination one of the arguments that plaintiff made was that the contamination exclusion does not list bacteria that is not necessary of very quickly then on the faulty workmanship point it's not just viewed at this point as to what happened and pola tower's has conceded that what probably cause to get into the water at these levels was the failure by a contractor to hyper chlorinate and super heat and clean the pipes before they were connected and that is faulty workmanship the policy is very broad excludes faulty workmanship from any cause whether that's physical damage or not and whether the contamination is physical damage or not doesn't really matter because if they are physical damage they're very clearly excluded  the terms of our policy if you don't have any other questions all sit down thank you thank you thank you use your time but  then there is no evidence but we received it in the mail that was on september ninth two thousand and one and it's not that our office received it on september ninth two thousand and one it's the factory mutual's supervisor mr