of the many reference and cross reference to various sections of the whole d c and this court underwent a an analysis of similar closest exclusion indorsement and coerced provisions in the cases decided recently this store garden stuff more and the three that fit co op versus on noah cases but the truth of the matter is that this case really boils down to a question as to what is or is not excluded by an equipment breakdown and seafood economy experience and equipment breakdown and its possibilities a compressor breakdown and the products they use his products became questionable for human consumption and were eventually specifically mentioned in the in the person the least under the building impersonal prover takeover cobra's farms and the declarations specify a limited amount of five hundred thousand dollars for the type of property and then the question as moscow ott loss of another's property yeah but the thing your honor if you look at the section of the endorsement which is section eight tool and you concentrate in that section a was that they were purchasing additional coverage to cover downstream losses such a small image but the way you wanted on with thinking about that and that way but the way your honor this is that covered right by that language because if not you might be sure that the next thing as purchasing additional coverage that would insure you against polio which then might be subject to the twenty five thousand dollars cap but the w the exclusion of equipment breakdown but what that would mean that he but that i thought that depends on it depends on what you mean it says all exclusions and limitations apply exactly right and it says  provision which says wait a second we didn't exclude the breakdown if you work through this indorsement it seems to be all about damage to the property of the insured or concerns about consequent the consequences of damage to property and the insured it really doesn't me nuts that's if there's if you can talk about an overriding theme in an insurance document that seems to be the overriding theme of the endorsement and so to even argue and i guess again you probably agree with this even argue that this indorsement has anything to do with the losses involving the property of another is simply to misread the overriding purpose of this this indorsement seems to have nothing to do i mean i can't really find anything in this indorsement that grosses at all the losses involving property of others that are turned over to the insured and as part of their business to and we submit that there's a clear definition for the words you when you're in the body and that's one of our main arguments you know about this last point when it says in the equipment breakdown average that the falling c think direct as a law and a whole policy that says we will pay for direct as a lot of damage to our property the very beginning of the policy yes and the fact that the have to think that include they could have done that here and that was not done here because indorsement either does not apply or that section eight to that was the one that was taken you know and then and used the blank form of approach by the court ys we will pay for direct physical laws of hope or damage to cover property with premises and then we have definitions of cover property which includes oh oh personal property of others that is in the care custody or control now that language would apply to the the goods of the your client right correct light of that but then then we have these exclude exclusions for damages that are caused by certain types of events such as a breakdown in mechanical equipment but i guess in terms of the perishable goods concerned you would you would talking about so it's the endorsement oh so restorers mechanical breakdown to cover causes then you would like to i guess you would argue that  that were present in the cold storage facility operated by a quantum e spoiled is the result of an equipment breakdown we haven't cited a case law in our memo or our brief but you know typically when the cases are talking about  direct physical loss or talking about some change in the physical characteristic of that specific property so i don't think there's a dispute here that there has been a direct physical loss what the insurers position has been as a district court found is that when you have the direct physical loss of perishable goods is the result of spoilage due to mechanical breakdown that you need to look to this equipment breakdown coverage in the policies  defining the scope of available coverage as well as the a political limit and you know under the insurance quote here in puerto rico the courts obligated to view the policy in its entirety and i think that's a very important thing to do because when you start with a policy declarations and you work your way through the contract what you're going to see is spoilage is treated specifically in indistinctly as the result of direct physical loss by way of example on page one sixty endorsement says is they're going to pay for a loss it doesn't you know unlike the building and personal property coverage form that says will pay for it direct physical loss or damage to covered property and then goes on to you know delineate certain subsections of government property with this in force of it does add an additional coverage that says we will pay for loss caused by resulting from an accident to cover to quit and you know what i think appears in this additional in what a j c has advocated in its first argument that brief is essentially well if you look further into this indorsement you've got a provision that modifies the causes of law special forming in the leads that exclusion so what they're what they're essentially saying as well because you've deleted the exclusion for equipment breakdown well then we're just going to we're going to focus on the policy without that exclusion a i think no they're not and if you're saying that i mean they're saying this in a way this this indorsement is a completely self contained insurance policy it starts with a statement of what's covered  respect to spoil the church but they're not the i mean this is with this indorsement i mean you know a you now have coverage that you didn't have before and you then look at this to understand what the limits no i don't think they're making the sweeping argument that you're attributing to them well but that's a that's a like it's true the argument raised in their brief that you get you get to that five hundred thousand dollars limit for the personal property of others because the quitman breakdown  that and let's look at the equipment breakdown and northman on its own terms what is it speaking about and their argument and this is their second argument it's not speaking about anybody else's property and then their  the section subsection a to see spoilage we will pay for your loss of perishable goods do the spoilage what it doesn't say is we will pay for the loss of your perishable goods due to spoil perishable goods which included perishable goods owned by a j c in in compliance with this indorsed that's how the insurance company read it that's how i understand the magistrate in the district court judge read it below that you know they case law that helped us figure out how to interpret this if there's an ambiguity here how to resolve it well you know the case last pretty clear about what you and your me as as is the policy in terms of how  court would construe this particular phrase i'm not aware of any cases in puerto rico or elsewhere that you know when they say we will pay for your loss of perishable goods  whether or not your is bonafide loss or that yours modifying perishable goods you know as i read the provision i read the word your to modify laws it's immediately president of means the insured how do you read that other than to say we're talking about the but what the laws of the perishable goods of the insured do dispose i don't know how much you seems to me you who makes the conscious choice of the word you were meaningless well i would respectfully disagree because if you if you read if you read this is only providing the limitation for property owned by the and short you're in essence creating two classes of perishable goods perishable goods owned by the insured in perishable goods owned by others if you look at the building and personal property form for example it defines covered property to include both the insurance business personal property as well as the personal property of others it's still covered  if you're going to read this to say your loss is the equivalent of your perishable goods then i'd argue your you know that construction is actually creating a distinction that's not found in the terms of the polls i don't disagree so the modifier your certainly can mean your control over something that's not just your own right which would be the same kind of construction that occurred here can i ask one last short piece of this which is not on the on this point suppose your opposing counsel is right in that perishable goods means on only goods of the insured and not the heirs they lose just i mean if that's right if this did delete the entire exclusion in its entirety what sense with there have been about bargain over at all well exactly if i specifically footnote two you know it talks about the interplay and some of these endorsements it ultimately you'll find in coverage under the flood indorsement in that case the court specifically noted that you know i'm going to quote here there is nothing in the language of the flood coverage  mandatory endorsement that has precluded effect over any other claim for damage brought under any other term of the policy including a claim brought on the basis of water damage resulting from brain overflow and what i'd submit is sure you've got this this section here that eliminates the exclusion but you have to have that otherwise you've got a policy to excludes mechanical or equipment and you've got a specific and horsemen to provide that coverage and it creates an internal inconsisten indorsement but of operates in a similar fashion is that how it you know modify sections of the policy specifically for that particular coverage it doesn't you know for example delete you know opposite it's not going to delete the exclusion for all intents and purposes for all risk coverage because that would necessarily require the court to ignore it although of the five or six pages of this equipment breakdown  revealed this claim from the harbor steamship boiler insurance agency were to once wonder on the road this risk and they interpret the police in the same way they save the property was property of others the limit is five hundred thousand