is it was one hundred fifty feet long and seventy feet why someone told him purchase insurance coverage for this the floating drydock back in april two thousand  if it actually had a name the perseverance perseverance that's correct and and it was listed on it when i looked at the insurance policy it was listed on the vessel schedule  as the perseverance and then as i also understand it you had declared whole value as well that's correct so why why it's not it place the entire time it was it was a time one to spend the mortgagee clause which is the sign to protect the interests of a mortgage that regardless of on a mortgage or on the shore is violating we're breaching the terms of the policy the rights of the beneficiary the these pirates rovers why isn't that ocean no need insurance it sounds like ocean marine charts you know i understand the concerns of this panel and let me let me see this certainly there controlling in the sense that it is premised on the puerto rico federal relations act section eight of that act basically is is only in the statement of congress given the power of the legislature power to legislate over money matters even to even contrary to federal mark time low which is not federal money time mention whatsoever of marini surance in the national sense of course the general state of the law has been promised by this issue in the southern pacific versus johnson and it that this this decision elevated maritime law to the same place as a feral statutory law and under the supremacy clause of course that should be preeminent all over any inconsistent state law that is the general state of law someone told his position is fifty thousand dollars they invested once in two hundred thousand dollars supposedly enrquez bringing up their out of pocket if you will to roughly one point three initially they insured for one point five and then escalated insurance also ask the question about what is the difference between mr adachi debauch a very good question and the marine architectural experts that testified in this case comments that upon that similarity as opposed to difference basically these sh decision questions the reliability or how far they were going to crash not adopting good faith and even cheval decisions in this is circuit since then that have reached the same question i think it's only a matter of time before they come around does the insurance company have any kind of obligation from the start to do any type of due diligence before it issues a policy in the appellants assertion is that there was no application there was no retrieval of information about this however we choose to define it your honor the lawyer is those things known that course is generally booked into the premium and passionate most all of the dollars back to the insurers and the shoes don't want that why because they know their own equipment i know my call better now and i'm sorry blow the real claim you said it sank it wouldn't come up as it was designed to do it's designed to submerge and come up it didn't do it because as you you say and that information was never communicated to the on the right or even you were on it if the coverage any think the coverage provided in the policy is exactly what a live in a one examines another point i want to highlight in the policy is again if your honor recognized the perseverance as for example is requesting the surgery which is clearly important that the legislature seems to to think that it may be considered an obstacle b and they had the potential client w not be able to seek or not think a particular coverage because it was unable to obtain a survey but really that's not the case here we were dealing here with a special license structures and people who know about these structures and they look around the domestic market no coverage was found they're looking to the international or foreign market coverage was found the jetstorm way has had a concern about the difference between a march on a floating dr