all right with both attorneys that are going to present arguments step up to the podium identify yourself for the record intent and we don't normally go outside for hours to determine intent but there is a st district case law at some point that says where the parties have the same understanding of the contract the same interpretation and also how they actually during the course of the contract we can look directly to that well aren't they basically same dollar at the provision that says express warrantees non it's not that they're not interpreting that the way you are sure condition in principle if you have a restaurant that requires the restaurant to maintain an active sprinkler system at all times in the kitchen and that's just added protection for the insurer that paid if you don't have this provision or the trying to explain what is meant by those particular words is right however when we get to the express warranties all the services just very clearly just one word not exactly it and i think that demonstrates in a tent in a tent that these be present during opening and closing their eyes and hearing all hours so you're saying that this is an express warranty i am not and the reason for that your honor is if you continue on past all the conditions and you get to what sort of sums up t condition and then it summarized at the end by saying this insurance is clute excludes all risk of loss for damage to the property shirt here under occurring at the in church premises unless the above and decisions are complied with and well if that's true that's true and that condition is in there is a condition receipt prior to that you call it a warranty so that makes an ambiguous doesn't mean it's not and that's the importance of it when you have to inconsistent statements but  uses the word warranty and there's a separate section entitled express warranty and then express warranty as a recognized legal meaning it does it goes to the light invited to the policy itself that new church has to be in full compliance or something again the notion of the warranty simply because they operate different i don't think it's like i think you have to look at it more and see how it's used in context this warranty say it's warranty just being a guaranteed you're guaranteed to do this and if you don't do this there's either no coverage for the policy is void so let me lay this let me ask you this if you were reading this published sheet to do with your reading the same way i think the question of whether or not it could have been written better is different than whether it's susceptible to t and in hindsight of course it there's things that i would do to button it up but that's just about every contract dispute you look back at retrospect and say yeah we could tighten this wording up but it's insurance contract it's meant to cover all whole series of i'm the other condition we certainly know that the locked door store window and showcase clause is is a condition right that's right there and do you argue and did the court conclude that or could it have to include since we can matters is the language that uses to explain it so for instance if it says this is a condition if you don't comply with this condition the policy is for it but again with that you're inserting language you keep your inserting that this is a condition and if you you don't comply with these conditions then there will be that the coverage is excluded like wait a minute where does it say that the other conditions it clearly says if it indeed the language immediately follows that other where no you know it just says none and that's it right and i suspect there are some policies that ensure issues that you have expressed warranties that go to whether or not the policy will be void maybe there's an insured in a high risk area and the insurer says look we're not going to share this  s they have this type of alarm system in place and that's where they would say ok this is an express warranty and that policy will be rendered boy if it is not quite if you're saying there's no confusion at all here that express warranties not a pay agree that a policy can be hard like all policies but i don't believe it's ambiguous here i think if you read the whole policy as a whole and look to the end and i don't believe it's ambiguous and we have to be guided by the rules of the parties understood with this policy at like three years sure and that's largely reliant on the deposition testimony as the insurer had the same understanding and i think that's what we're really after is what was the part intent and when the parties have the same intent we don't have to even get into the rules of construction we can use what the party sat and that's an admission it's yes this party this policy is clear i understood what the policy meant and i complied with it and i had the same understanding as the other side but the court disregarded that and we can't disregard the admission when it was her testimony by the jewelry store that they understood that if they didn't have two people there  policy would i believe that's what the i don't recall and where where where is that now as far as whether it would be void that specific part no but as far as did the insurer understand it had to comply with that you person warranty parties understood with all these things man where is there any testimony even if you've anyone from the jewelry store understood that they didn't have two people there the policy would be boring it wouldn't be void it just wouldn't be where would we get it from because we only have three words here express warranty and then a call in and then not sure it and it's a legal definition but the insured knows that ok whatever those express warranties are it's not it's it the insurers understand this you were up here and talking about what this actually means and you had to add a bunch of language to tell us what i think an insured would understand that they would have to comply with the conditions and policy that are set forth as the insurer did testify and that there would be no express for kids that that would be a question that the insurer came back to his broker with whatever express warranties and this policy like just about every boy's policy says if you have any questions fifteen what they found was the meaning of the word expressed warranty and what they said was the meaning of the phrase not and they said that expressed more and see the meaning of express warranty is distinct and that time page thirteen and that the true that is also an express warranty so it is immaterial whether we're talking about an affirmative warranty or a promise of the story warranty council saying it's trying to make some distinction between affirmative  raised later on in the litigation was that in the deposition of the chief claims officer of underwriters i was asking him a question about their reservation of rights letter and why it did not contain the formal language that is required and really this is what happened and then i looked at the whole policy again and i saw this language so i realized that all of the dispute that we've had been talking about there to four was really irrelevant was immaterial because whether or not the two person warranty was complied with and whether or not the safe warranty was complied with is immaterial when you have a saying no no there's nothing ambiguous about the policy except in a general way so there's the language of the provisions underwriters enter messiah i agree the language of these provisions is unambiguous but what you have is you have really three unambiguous provisions the two artes we've been discussing and the language expressed warrant correct so how do you say that there's no ambiguity that's where the ambiguity is so you have three unambiguous provisions but there is an irreconcilable conflict between the language of each of insurance pursuant to general contract law the courts have made that statement but when you look at me that statement many many times but when you look at one of your one of your primary positions here is that her insurance policies we never ever go out only cases where that was even considered are not coverage cases those are cases where for example there was a dispute about the amount of premium do under the policy so these are these fir our motion to strike the answer of underwriters we moved to strike the answer by underwriters because underwriters did not host a pre pleading security  it was construed by the supreme court of connecticut which found it to be mandatory all right which we can look at every day you can look at pepperdine so yes your honor and that's really my the warranty that goes to whether or not the policy remains in force that's good that has to be said if it's going to say this is a warranty and the policy void if you don't comply with it of that this is a warranty and if you don't to see this issue up on appeal especially with the standard of abuse of discretion but clearly there was a bona fide excuse to there on a five reason to deny coverage here as we went through in our  judgment all the reasons for why the insurer did not comply with the two person warranty in the evidence is significant i mean it's it's contemporaneously reported statements by the insurance company immediately following the last it's alarm about yes so the bond argument gets raised after the close of discovery so that's the st time it's raised and what i believe that we substantially comply with the requirements policy wasn't countersigned but that part of the service lines act doesn't apply to the insurer it applies the surplus line producer much like must much of the sections in for forty five deal with what individuals other than the insurer must do it's largely the surplus lines producer and we can't control whether the surplus line producer has its annual fee so that most meaning to be a surplus lines producer so my understanding of what they're saying is is ok the insurer itself those obligations that the insurer must comply with that if they comply with it then they don't have to post proof leading security and the only argument then remaining is that the noticed section in ambiguous and it's yeah it's clear that summary doesn't also be entered in favor of underwriters because i believe the undisputed evidence shows that they work in compliance with the person warranty and even if they were close that a lot gore showcase cause of the safe warranty what it would apply to defeat coverage so either way summary judgment would prevail no matter what version of the facts they presented this statement now to counsel and i wanted to address his argument that underwriters substantially complied with the requirements of one  time and i suppose this would go to whether it's mandatory or directory and as i said a supreme court of connecticut and just us district court sitting in connecticut they would have an opportunity to post the five and that is why what we're saying is that if the court were to reverse the trial court then it should be sent back down to the trial court  it moved after the summary judgment was granted all right and also counsel made the argument that it was our agent who didn't  obtain the counter signature of the surplus lines association but the policy specifically states and that the surplus lines broker what they call s l broker in the power seat was their