because you served my work for this past year so i am quite satisfied possesses the necessary qualifications so i am very pleased to move your admission to the bar at this court and i invite judge rater to decide whether to i think we need a vote i'm prepared to i do have known chris and we share a common background and i'm very happy to support his emotion we're looking forward to seeing you for many years thank you again welcome to the  back morning is numbers zero six sixteen seventy eight navy against bath iron works mr mann h but that's not the spirit is what caused the loss or that this was a casually loss or that it flowed from the error that was made in putting the salt water in the pipes and the question is who's the insurer and if in fact the government chose to be self insured for the casualty dos either your point has to be that this is not a casualty loss or that it's not something that could have against whatever it is that might require insurance you have to say there's no way anybody could ever have insured against this kind of loss and therefore the government could not have self insured against it but there  an example or the contractor takes out whatever insurance would be appropriate to all rest got to know what it would not what it might be and they reimburse it or raise the contract price of business take out insurance rather casually caused by whatever other risk there are besides acts of god and that their understanding of the custom and tradition has been that this is how it works and that's certainly for today if there's no virtue if you can't you can't come within the four corners of being considered for coverage but once you are within those four corners very must also be given to the terms of the expressed exposure and here to the vessel due to the defective work and clearing and we find the record and there was a variety of conflicting testimony about how some of the factors the use of the ship being built on the level  before mr johnson began can you check and make sure the microphones are working particularly in the afternoon thank you along with many other causes the board for example specifically found that he could be the real culprit here was the fact that the water was left in this low life hiking system for eight months the boards that had that flush then performed with fresh water the same result could well have occurred and that was very fresh water yes yesterday and that was words opinion differently i mean you're right there was an expert that said this was the least important factor but the board says there are multiple factors that contributed to it yes yes that's true exactly but i was responding to judge  exclusion does not apply what about if it was the but for i mean the government suggested that but the end there might have been multiple contributing factors but but for the brackish water flush it would not have happened that would fall within the due to language of the insurance c i was river water and one with actual hundred percent ocean water and nothing happened and there was one difference the difference is that the water was not left in the piping system in a closed system over a period of several months and the scientific evidence that was produced at the hearing of the board itself did said that it was that the brackish water lying in that system over a period of eight months and it was a mixture via way of brackish water with fresh water because i just test the water it was down in there as well that was the only difference between what happened  prior ships and what happened in the ship well let me let me go back to the insurance clause itself leaving aside the do you agree that the reference to the government doesn't assume the risk for any defects in themselves in the festivals that  because a vessel that has been discovered has defective right so by reading because the way the navy does it means that there is no coverage whatsoever under this all risk insurance policy for anything that can be linked even remotely to work well that's and that that raises all kinds of other questions i mean that hypothetical or another similar hypothetical might then bring in what you all think is the fortuitous exception i mean if the pipes leak oil in the kippah clouds maybe or maybe not that's not the case before us there would be a for to an exception seems to me that maybe well for two to meet but for a moment let's just stick to the clause then and say so you concede that the defect greeting of similar clauses in all similar builders risqu says that what that does is excludes of a recovery the cost of performing the work again that does not it seems to me maybe that discussion goes to the earlier phrase which says whether they will pay what costs the government will pay for but if we stick to the phrase and the defects themselves in the best of what you've agreed and the corrosion of the  to defective workmanship we agree that the brackish flushing with the brackish water was defective workmanship right so why isn't why aren't the defects in the pipe due to the brackish water covered by this closet seems to me i have to scrap with the coffee first it's because to do that we're led down the pass necessarily and i don't think there's any starting place along the road of saying anything that happens to that vessel even if dean tire five hundred million dollars vessel is destroyed in the process is not covered by this clause and how it would be an absurd reading of the clause would mean that all risks insurance clause or or storms or hurricanes and things like that so what would you remind me what was measured by the damage and there was a warning to the measure of d l if you're this judge newman wh is the cost of tearing out replacing the low line piping system that had these leaks and some of them to be welded rewelded and may sound but but there was a great deal of work th had to be done to be in the very bottom of the ship basically take out hundreds and hundreds of feet of this pine tree and replace it with new pipe that is the cost issue that was the casualty can we would describe as defective led to a casualty something that no one could foresee no one had a clue this could happen we've flushed two prior to ease this way without any adverse result there were other factors at play the principal one being this is the first ship that we constructed in an entirely new way and by doing that and saving that eighty a great deal of money in the process we created a situation in which we but you can't get all of it and was out over time so you're saying that we ought to apply this clause in the right distinction between the defective workmanship that the contractor knew about and defective workmanship clear that if in fact this is a contract you should still have to now carry insurance that they had till now thought the government was providing someone's going to pay for it those costs one way or another i would think i would make no sense otherwise that that aspect i complained about overhead one of the cases where the government paid for a lot of insurance and nothing went wrong  but nonetheless the government paid a heavy premium and this is being saved and so so the lines are withdrawn in terms of who is a fall into really requiring drawing a fin line than is immediately apparent other than the word themselves in the contract as to who's to pay the rent in the future whoever ends up paying it now i suppose will control who patients in the future