years to the duty to defend the district courts said there were at least four claims in going negligence case that at least arguably injury that determines whether there's a duty to the  management of the proper use financing of the properties which are all activities that are specifically mentioned in the exclusion and i believe i turn to the other one the district court also mentioned the investment choices where the investment choices were made was the purchase of the properties in rhode island and massachusetts and one of the claims had to because the definition of professional services also includes the financing of real property so what happened here your honor the source of the funds injury was that one wor because of the extent to which they borrow that money and the ability to generate sufficient revenues from the properties they are unable to meet the mortgage and tax liabilities the complaint is that were improperly retained certain revenues from one of the properties the stone house as a management fee but again all that did was exacerbate there's a description of services at the end of the exclusion correct but the services have to be performed adds a real estate broker agent a listing agent the real estate appraiser title agent a title obstruct or search or escrow agent none of those are anything that would be relevant here as best i can tell then there is real estate developer maybe that's the only other one you say qualifies i believe that's correct ok so with respect to me property measure the district court was of the view that the classic role of a property manager is different than an investor in the property i believe that's fair so is and a potential problem for you because it would be well clear here whether although it was services provided such as high  in like they work he says clearly provided as a property manager as opposed to somebody who was an investor in the property well it depends on which of the allegations that's directed to if you if so as long as there's thought that the duty to defend the potus well let me let me put it this way your honor if you're looking at the allegations against workers or property manager i think their failure to pay property taxes because they lack the cash flow across clearly written that i think they're taking income from the properties as a freak fall squarely in that and i think the balance of the property the balance of the problems  resulted out of their role as a real estate developer in purchasing in finance and problems so i think you have to look at those two aspects of the definition in conjunction and then just on developer a little stuck to the district or didn't seem to engage with that particular presuming it was raised i mean one possibility is that real estate developers developing from scratch as opposed to  in property that's there would be one aspect yes but that's a problem for you because then again some of it could trigger the duty to defend right give you a lack of clarity on the play and then that goes against but i think that just because you can develop property from the ground up does not mean that when you purchase a property like the stone house and run it made it over eight years that language of the exclusion in the introductory language it has to involve real estate development property management purchase of property in the party that's your property and if it involves that conduct the not sure that's an adequate answer you know as non real estate developer i'm looking at this would not have thought that this actually was a real estate development and adding the word and fall of doesn't seem to help your case much or at least my understanding is a possible understanding of the clause and honor i must respectfully beg to differ because again when you look at the language of exclusion what they're trying to address is investments in real property and in this circumstance that's an investor in real property and you didn't that we put in the purchase of real property no in the financing of real numbers you could have been you might even better off if you drop the first sentence of the exclusion that's right but you included the persons of exclusion so that the only things that are excluded are actions that are taken as a certain type of actor and then only certain services when performed as such an actor are excluded so it's true that last sentence describes services that were performed but the exclusion is clearly written to say that fact alone is not enough those services have to be performed as a certain type of actor and that those actors are going on so unless you're one of those type of actors there's no problem and if there's a lack of clarity as to whether you are a property manager a the damages should be limited to the cost of the thoughts i thank you you've got two minutes or a bottle are correct and in fact i believe in the lower court rejects sailor asked us to after he ruled on our motion for summary judgment and rules for both part and to respond with a form of judgment at that time it was my understanding he was seeking to see whether or not it was the policy when that board that was the entire default judgment of over five million dollars that we were receiving and whether or not there was any allocation because in the end  susceptible to return potations that it states or sketches a cover claim then there's a duty to defend and we think that applies to our policy as well councillors argued that there should be a duty to defend even if the professional services no claim or as to the other two properties it is reasonable to think the exclusion did not apply there as to those two properties we believe it is the case that when you purchase real property you're engaged in real estate development and property management when you leverage those properties you're engaged in real estate development and probably management allegation