child molester he unilaterally seized two and a half million dollars of audio visual his production equipment unilaterally ship the guy off to another city for storage and unilaterally extirpated the production process before you get too sentient studio your honor which was one of the partners or members of political studios which was the limited liability company so all of the members of that are themselves right but there's under the property clause there's the talks about the personal property of others so what's this you have any rights under that yes we do your honor and that's the  loss or damage to covered property how do you get the physical damage or loss to the credit of the complaint alleges that the credits were there but then the film negative was mutilated so that the credits were excised and the fact of the matter is and i think it appears as a matter of the record that all of these credits and recently appeared in the films until they were executed by like so that would be that's not a loss of credits in the sense of intangible property you're claiming right would not be physical loss or damage now that the credits indeed are property and i don't see the point and i don't where's the california supreme court in a different cases under different statutes and different property can say anything it wants to get ground back to the policy that you're dealing with in every game and where in this case i think there's a question you've been asked do you find something that says film credits are covered property for purposes of this probably hundreds of years yes but the point is you have to look at the policy not some theory of what property can be and if the policy doesn't cover the property that you want to argue about then there's no coverage that's a basic  property under the property form there is coverage if your owner has pointed out or damaged the personal property of others which could be in the care because you control the insured and under very specific requirements the purpose to cover that kind of property payment by travelers to personal property of others will be only for the account of the owner of the front protect yes the idea would be that the travel would be in position to pay the owner of the property for damage t property or if it chose to pay the insured that money down with then go to the owner of the property to make sure that the owner of the property the damage property was paid and the idea is to benefit the insured who then obviously not going to place  that sort of thing yes the property coverage takes care of the problem but the certainly not could be construed that it's also giving standing and rights the owner of the property yes and that's the point i'm getting to your honor i think it doesn't make the same provision for the owner of the property for the credits no there is not and that's what i was getting to the business income for her is a separate form of the policy which does not confer any rights on the third party the contract with that form provide was personal property of others which i believe it was and that it was in the control of one of our named shores and it was damage wrought electrical and the damage did not result from something that excluded that they would have standing to come in after us to pay for the joining you talking about the equipment and the credits yes i'm talking about the ok i can spot so i can sort out the can with some credits have their own complications but i just want to make sure as you go through this if there's a from our point of view the actual decision to exclusion would apply in any event because it is still evolution or act by mr wade sixty's this property this is something that didn't happen as a matter of fo hypothetical and say well if this hypothetical put it recovered we know well that might not be covered my position is that under the facts of this case and there are really only two characterizations in this case one is that the other is seizure a protected into attention in to get to a desk basically that both of those things that are in this case and we should look at the policy in the context of things we can dream of we look at in the context of what is before us in the case consequences of his intentional volitional act and that is clearly not what this impulse is intended to do it over you were just told us that the owner of the other property also has an interest in compensation the owner of the other property has an interest in compensation if the casualty losses caused by something that is covered under the polls right what what what is the you know the fact that  mr waits may have been insured may have engaged in reprehensible behavior was that why should that have an adverse effect on the interests of if i may destruction property i am also saying that under california a lot that is a non story to it is an event when judge from the standpoint of the insured which is with the ricin and in a metal metallica pose as a result of a let's say you know two permits there to be coverage for and this policy also says that the act intentional act by any person cause damage was not covered and that is what the court found you agree with that and business income coverage that city and says the third party beneficiary so therefore has the status of the colon sure that that's correct what you said that's french or what do you get that in other words entire difference between being a third party beneficiary and being a cohen be true under the property cause that's pressure so that of the got my hypothetical guitar players or co insurance if it was the guitar plays guitar you know then yes it was not a good hard going