under the policy this day farm issue in my clients it excludes defective construction as a car as it was however there is an exception to the defective covers this rain damage in other words exclusive under your ruling tensile this court ruled under identical policy language for don't say that it's been and they thing else you say it's raining this insurance company under its insurance contract knows how to defy rain when it wants to be under a separate section of the policy limitations section if hossa about rain and when it wants to limit coverage just rain it knows how to describe it under the repeated linkage and sedition exclusion r stipulated and i don't know whether he needs to but because the factual information is pretty clear this building was not very well built but he stimulated the loss here in his opinion faulty inadequate unsound or defective and i'll shorten it up construction and number four says we do not insure under any coverage for any loss consisting of the items in paragraphs one two or three to in paragraph two k so if you look at this language which mr half in and tries to say that there's an escape hatch for his clan under paragraph three where it says however exclusion of flies only if the physical loss is a loss described in paragraphs one or two above it is specifically described in either paragraphs one or two above i e paragraph says rain has to be in there otherwise this exclusion doesn't apply to this precise factual setting well the washington supreme court is very clear that one may not really characterize the p in order to avoid the exclusion and in the kiss case which is a case in which water caused flood damage by overtopping dikes causing damage to structures the policyholders in that case said well we do have this flood exclusion in the policy but the efficient proximate cause was raining and washington supreme court we believe that since this policy does not exclude rain electronic equipment causing the loss there was a i can paragraph to that paragraph three in that policy which is different from in wording from this policy and it read after the practive construction exclusion it's said but it accidental direct physical writes results from items three eight and three b which is the defective design construction exclusion we will pay for that resulting loss limitation in a completely different section and that there is this policy says we will provide coverage unless it is excluded under the property subject limitations exclusion or in the property subject to exclusion section and the property subject to limitation section was this limitation that says you must have damage to the exterior structure before we will pay for any water that intrudes into the in r of the court said art that section is a different section than this one that we're referring to if you look at what they said they said that that is is not in this section therefore this brings coverage back in we're not relying upon the property subject to limitations section of the policy in this case it's free form didn't rely upon it in the  potential case because that was were not taught that they were not talking about repeated or continuous leakage or seepage of water that as occurred over a period of time they were talking about a sudden downpour right into the interior of the of the structure so there was no factual limitation in the tent ok's so factually the scenario was completely different than the present and it invoked different provisions of the policy act that case doesn't apply to this case at all i submit except for what they carve away and you're correct that they did carve away damage caused by defective construction that then gave back under the exception to that exclusion