exception exception the negligent misrepresentation exception because they're your information provider eighteen t consume them further damage is for the economic loss are they your information provider they are and the reason they are in their mindset they're looking for certain things the machine may tell them certain things they may know based on their experience that maybe it's not that we're in the machine made indicate it is they may have to go to  the six inches and either way here's where the flags that doesn't sound like a whole lot of analysis and a robot could do it well in the future we grab it we'll have you know robotic whatever it doesn't it because the purpose of putting in the beer is to provide information as to where the facilities are and you have to remember giving talks about the three through for the purpose of the protect persons and property preserve utility services and if you if you strictly apply the mormon doctrine they have no gravity so it seemed like the exception will run it then it starts morphing into an extra contractual duty even between the parties which is what we're talking about here now with congregation the passion termes and it just analytical verses ideas are incorporated into the products of their communities a big difference between the analytical ideas and that's what we're dealing with here we're not dealing here with a document where somebody says here's a  with the pure information support provided and is a result of the you can sue under the exception in their terms representation you consume for your damages in this case briefed and responded and had it has applied brief as well on the three of four a issue dealing with many of the issues is addressed in the guy or case and other cases regarding finality and other issues of consideration in the three zero four go to show that the court if there are true to your honor and i see your point but i think that the arguments presented even before the court that are in the record regarding history of for analysis during that may hearing i'm dealt with the been taking is an entirely separate issue that frankly could probably die for katie from the trial of a t n t s matter if it's separate damages it's a separate party that's seeking damages it's a separate and distinct gary recognizes one of the most important factors that can trump even a situation where you might have the potential for minuteness is the potential catalytic effect on settlement and i think that that was a central focus both of the briefs and in this is not an appropriate situation to keep us i see the mix on what should be a small claim for that purpose and having resolution of whether or not you as i see can be liable contribution with clients who care to be t n t is going to have a question regarding really the purpose of the mormon doctrine should be central to the analysis and if we look at mormons purpose which i think initially came the barrel to create a situation where we could avoid having tort law start eating into the land of contract and essentially mormon saying look if we have certain kinds of damages and damages that should be covered by a contract we're not going to let parties recover unless they have a contract and that of course can lead to some harsh and some unfair salts in circumstances which if you don't have a contract would allow exceptions to come into play but where you help the contract there's no need for the exception no one here is  situation where an excavator could bring a claim for economic losses against the utility because the till and he had a statutory obligation to market its underground facilities and there was no contract and the in the bargain for agreement put in that circumstance where there was no contract we essentially have a circumstance where the legislature has created a statute that will has no teeth if we don't provide a recourse for the economic damages to be met and incidentally that disservice respect and contract law for it's the purpose of being of the contract this is a circumstance like congregation of the passion vs two should ross where if you have an extra contractual degree that's been violated and the court saying look we don't want to let professionals limit liability to the four corners of the contract because when you have an accountant or a lawyer and they're providing important services there's a tremendous i think risk to the customer spends losing actions by the same token the same economic losses can be recoverable in tort where the injuries are causing the downs who no contract are warranty is available that's really the issue we have here we exactly it was an extra contractual duty and and that's because the courts didn't want to limit it to the four corners of the contract what professionals like that can do and say you know i'm going to do x service for you and  lawyer that's frankly probably a little bit frightening so i think that it makes sense why the lines have been drawn where they've tried i'm on the other possibilities and we see the sensor relevance is that there is a lot like duration where you have an extra contractual obligation but it's one that's been created by statute and frankly initially on surveillance i think the analysis was very similar to where it was here where you have a bank that has a contract with its customer and the underlying core of the tra in some of the cases situations where you have a contract but you also have the ability to pursue a tort because of an extra contractual obligation that's been breached but not where you are as a result of an exception no i don't think so i think where you have a situation like this one where the point of the contract and the only allegation against us ac is that we fail to mark appropriately and that is the purpose for being architect just creating a plan that it's been the architects never creating something tangible it's not building the building u s i see is basically putting a map on the ground that others are using to create what they're going to create whether it be a road project or a building or what have you so i'm not sure why us i see these paint on the ground which i think could be likened to a map or a design like an architect or soil sampler who's not an information provider about a surveyor i think the survey injustice from the lack of a contract and a party that's been harmed because they don't have a contractual recourse so you go back to the student area where we have here wearing t and t has the contractual recourse you don't have the possibility where and fault party can skirt liability all together because every party can be reached and the other thing that i think is important to consider here and that's certainly addressed more questions on the lines that we've been on but the the difference here well to me there are critical in the case because they are the information provider are critical in the case because they within the exception they are subject to liability and torque is ok talks about subject to liability and toward arising out of the same injury and that's what the issue is they are your information are different than the facts that we have for completely different locating was the house in both follow flukey here we have a third party who's called and authorized locating catchers through doing the ok and they're supplying the information for the based on the information based upon the location that they're doing and i think when you look at the the