which support six coverage here is for priest suit claims or expenses related to responding to administrative agency orders related to cleanup and remediation of environmental contamination and pollution so when one compares the loss to the language of the ensure an agreement and here the language of the insurer in agreement is clear there is a duty to defend suits seeking damages clause and thinks there's some significance in that would you like to address that forest yes your honor so you're referring to the ultimate net loss limits of liability amended endorsement and what th do and what the poor is focusing on in that indorsement is language that says this policy shall continue in forces under my insurance in the event of exhaustion so the court is reading that language and it order as a sort of fall of formal language to saying that once primary insurance is exhausted and therefore the excess of policy is somehow transformed into the primary policies and afford coverage the exact same basis and that is simply not true all that this language is saying here in this indorsement is that once primary insurance exhausts that and then access coverage will pick up where primary leaves off but that is a huge leap to say oh and therefore by the way it does so on precisely the same terms or somehow incorporates a broader ensuring green mention of the underlying whereas the basic part of the edge of the insurance agreement does contain that subject of language so you have at the very outset of the policy of the case but subject to the elites anything in the policy form it says it amends the policy form and as a court agrees it simply supplements the policy arm so all these provisions can and should be read two that may be reasonably read as changing or altering the scope of the coverage endorsement two does not alter the scope of the coverage ensuring agreement says what it says it is limited to says that or says that we're going to follow form to the primary policies it does prefer what it really is intended to do is to simply say that when undermined primary insurance exhaust will pick up primary endorsement on the access policy and that ensures that the excess coverage is more broad and is covers the same scope aggress the underlying primary policy but that's not invariably th case you can also have access policies that say there are follow or except to the extent that the access policy provides additional terms conditions and exclusions and in fact that's often the case often narrow scope of coverage so you could do it that way or you could have do it the way we have it here and there are excess power which is that the those policies have their own ensuring agreement that provide a narrow cover costs outside the context of a lawful an act a primary policies have the identical standard form language and the only reason they provide it rogers coverage is because there is an endorsement is a broad form property damage liability insurance indorsement that expands coverage to include both claims and students we don't have that endorsement on the umbrella access follow foreign policy is expressed it says we expressly here by adopt the terms and conditions of the underlying policy a few pages long it's meant to to adopt another policies ensuring agreement that in order to understand the scope of coverage you have to look at that ultimate net loss definition and here the old man was definition you does make reference to the claim elements of claims and so forth it in context it's not merely the fact that ultimately that loss includes the word claims you have to look at a particular function and what it's doing so empowering to ultimate net loss appeared in the ensuring agreement and that ensuring agreement says we c ask you that what if i find it isn't i mean there's no question it's challenging to piece together and there's no question that a layperson inexperienced in reading it might have a difficult time in doing it that's the general aggregate limit and then the language comest separately in respect to product liability an occupational disease means there are also separate aggregate limits for these particular types of losses  product liability and occupation is that how it should be written in addition there are additional separate limits but that doesn't negate the fact that there's also a general general aggregate limit in the determines where the san diego unified portion or she gets the booty to temples historically booty insurance coverage for its historic environmental liabilities imposed on them or who not because of its actions but because of events others that decades orders one of the things well let's let's get right at it yes what is the specific language in the umbrello or excess policies that alter this scope of coverage from suits and damages now just a minute but doesn't that language just mean that this ensuring agreement shall apply that's the language just indicate that when excess coverage is triggered it will be covered by this insurance agreement and therefore will be limited coverage for suits of damages your honor has many duties and you're very very busy but one of the things unfortunately that a i g has put you in a position in here is being an underwriter for a i j that's not what the policy says the edgy underwhelmed i mean i'm having a tough time understanding why that isn't what the policy says because it says your order this this ensuring agreement show also a quality two occurrences says nothing about trigger this show also applied to occurrence is not covered by the underlying insurance because of exhaustion of the aggregate limits by reason of lost pay they're under so what it says is that when the underlying primary policy which kelso for a readily concede scott requite with that underlying insurance is paid out and that george is no longer language is very clear that the coverage here only relates to damages and in fact when we cover version refers to the portion of the to the to the of these if you would please the the defense provision clarks the they have an obligation an obligation to defend any suit with respect to a claim they may have the right to but they're not obligated to so you look at those two provisions it seems to me they're all about damages and not all claims well right if i hear what you are saying but that's it does not say that in the in the provision saying that this applies to occurrence is not covered by underlying insurance due to exhaustion they don't put ultimate loss in there and then if i may proceed to the endorsement indorsement which underlying insurance drops off it explicitly states this continues in force as underlying insurance and their wives and that why does of that language simply speak to when the excess coverage is triggered not the ports fault that is what a g did no further if you take a look at the language that that supplements and this is set out in our in our grief of pages thirty three dollars thirty four cents that indorsement takes out declarations so what they're removing if it were the removing is saying this policy is subject to its own terms and conditions that language appears on three hundred is being amended and two needed by g when stating that it's continuing in force as the underlying well as the underlying well but if you're if you're really talking about the scope of the coverage which seems to be where you are now i mean if this expands the scope of the coverage good clue claims then why wouldn't it render the coverage and the duty to defend the provisions of the base policy frank lisa perf list there's perfectly permissible for an excess and brawl policy to soup to supplement coverage in the underlying in the in the in the underlying policy and we see that  so on they follow form and even they follow form to certain underlying coverage so it's perfectly consistent coverage but those coverages have to do with coverage for property  lucas but they prove that this policy in incorporates and in certain instances they follow form and adopt one which they adopt in other places underlying policy definitions it's perfectly consistent for this argument is that there is not a clear and unambiguous interpretation of this language and therefore you can come up with an interpretation that's ok now i that's why i asked her the question about don't need to talk about your reasonable interpretation at all it'll be wrong it's not clear and ambiguously the way you want it to be you have lost your voice if you turn off your mike mr parker bitch we cannot hear you judge i'll try to give in on the phone we can we can hear you we had him back for just a moment there mr hart of if we could hear you now now we can have for approximately the last three minutes you are here you're very go back to your argument you are making because i didn't hear any of it th please the court the question is whether or not this is a reasonable interpretation we are not advocating that this is the that this language is clear and unambiguous far from it that's not where our were sitting that a result in this is what the district court found and we asked the court to affirm that a reasonable interpretation is that when it says that it's continuing force as underlying insurance that it's providing the same coverage that the underlying insurance provides a i g does not contest that it provides coverage for coins and when it needed the provision that says that it's subject to its terms conditions and limits as stated in the declaration page and what it says that it meant that it's the lead and that you really look toward the scope of the coverage you look toward what's in the underlying policy and that's consistent with the other the  the other aspects of the of the policy of and that's what the district court held we as your honour's to affirm that it's not that we are saying that we were the language is clear and  s we're not setting that we're not saying that we have why we know that we know that counsellor we're not saying that the only reason we would even think about your reasonable interpretation is if we find it's ambiguous policy if we don't find it sam big us if we find it's clear and unambiguous what you think it means makes no difference that's true if you fight it's clearing out again thank you yes you have is all i was trying to say if you find that i language different factual circumstances the policyholder the court in garamendi held in favor of maximizing card the language was extensive and garamendi there were paragraphs and in item three b there is a specific reference to endorsement to and it begins by saying in the aggregate for the policy period of e j your period indicating decorations each uncle period during the currency of this policy during the kurds whose policy separately in respect to products liability and it was such a personal injury by occupation ones i'm sure there is so your argument is about garamendi we've heard it before we've read about it and then if you vamps are cow if you fancy my colleagues question then i think your time is up they think you're honest your time today thank you yeah modest what your time's up it's up so it i appreciate it thank you very much your honor i want to make just two very quick points and response about mr parker that said your honor have hit the nail on the head when you said why have our if if this was intended to be a follow form policy and to adopt and incorporate the terms of the primary policy why on earth would this access umbrella policy why would they have their own history group their own terms and conditions and render the entire polic