drilling of an irrigation well the answer to that question is no and the reason why monroe did not have a duty to defend this because exclusions j five and j six in the policy applied to  bar coverage for the claims in damages saw the application of the analysis of the application of these exclusions is very straightforward and it's our position that the courts reverse and render judgment in favor of our client based on those exclusions quite simply the allegations in the lawsuit were fairly sparse but the allegations admiral insurance company decision from two thousand and eleven which was written by this court it is cited in our briefing that case dealt with the situation which the insurer was hard to deliver casing and d it was construction of a believe a condominium and the damage occurred at a later point in time under those taxes corelle that damage didn't occur while the insured was performing work but the those damages to some other part that the exclusion does not apply to that damage because the explosion says it has to apply to that particular part of the property the courts see which are the core ject of that argument d because it said look the insured here was performing more on the well d d as a whole those or the or the core d issues just like here five he was drilling a well into the top of her and was performing all of the  our case bob he was the only party hired to drill the well and that and they were doing the entire project not just some discrete part so we believe the cases really distinguished from our  e you i'm pressing the side the coverage period argument and if so isn't that argument somewhat in tension with the business risk exclusion argument in that if that if the suggestion is that the s built around just the part that was being built the well in the bit sticking in the well that doesn't really harmonize with the suggestion that it was just one domino as opposed to debris falling in the aquifer  just down to which prep is ition of place applies because you chose the word through that they were hired to drill through the aquifer but one could easily just say they were hired to build a well that would draw from the aquifer and if the if the damage were exclusively to the well that would then draw water from the aquifer then it would seem like the work that did the particular work was just the well it wasn't this whole geological drilling into a reservoir whether it's for a loyal gas water if you did it what you're drilling into is part of that operation then it's our position that the exclusion would  it or through it the net include that is that particular part of real property and i get a little idea you probably know that he's well and i look at it because you have to sized it judge as you remember footnote four it really wasn't clear to me whether he was saying that the exclusion would it would apply even to damage to the oil field i couldn't discern from his footnote whether he agreed with what you're saying or not as to damage to an oil field extracted from the reservoir which presumably based on the damage to the rest or and that was excluded and that's the closest analogy that i can make you know cook not involve a situation where the i really don't think there's any dispute that all the other damage would be excluded because they were drilling the well so any damage to the well or anything else that would be excluded the issue is whether the uk offer is something that we're working on  property that was not bat particular part of the property on which the insured d was working at the time and that is the key here and i believe that  evaluated d this issue when she said that the damage to allegations d with respect to damage to the software for it still would be damage to either their property or certainly that particular property of which the insured was not working at the time of the incident which would mean that it all outside of those exclusion and the context of these d kluge is that they also important d to address d texas law with mutual d insured we agree up until the time the thirty minute petition was filed that no duty d of defense was triggered it was not until the rd minute titian d with files that we believe d allegations of damage to the offshore for potentially triggered d the bin which is the guiding principle under texas law the eight corners rule d d as part of the bedrock of texas law this court recently issued an opinion d two a policyholder d under texas law reference to the bleeding and to the policy determine whether d that duty is triggered here  that is what the quote that particular part close quote language of this ready exclusion is intended to do to ready limit its application to the discrete part of the work that the insured is performing already gone through it and it was at a depth that was inside the aquifer is that it a spatial difference that matters sure not you very carefully said that the damage occurred as they were drilling to the aquifer i don't think that it matters from our standpoint drilling to the offer and i believe that is the distinction that the damage alleged is to it even if it were you assume he is sure it was hired to work on part of the awkward or that was not that particular order the work that was being you have to drill through the dome to get down to where the rest of our lives are are you drilling down to a certain level where there's you know some much water permeating the aco for that you can separate like from the opinion it's very difficult to separate the permeation sin they are for from the entire purpose of the grilling i mean not just in theory because you fill a hole in the ground and if there's water down in a way down there it's not like a house of the sum of many parts without without the water there's nothing so yeah and you know if you look at that consolidates case for instance you can have a house without electrical wiring you can have a house with different kinds of siding you are you need a structure but covers something yes i think that's an excellent point and i think that the bag that they assured may own the quote water beneath his property doesn't mean that allegations are d evil d d allegations in this case are limited damage to that water it was simply an allegation d that it was a way d to the free flow of water at your comment highlights made better than what the way i was saying it d before and that is this was not the october itself was not that particular part of the insurance work d insurance property you would have to make an incremental week to even get there so i believe that she or size of the opera her and the nature of what it is means that the allegation d of damage d to that structure for thousand five hundred feet of well is that what you're saying no i said well i hadn't thought about that exactly d because that way the service here but i think certainly the drilling up to the point of being  be that particular d part of the work because that's the allegation that the drill bit d got stuck so you can't avoid that part of it but with respect to the casing and the other arguments that were made d i'm not sure that this would even necessarily apply defending subject to coverage defense no no ma'am if my client has already resolve the underlying this so this is strictly limited to the defense issue at this point we did defen in our discussion with mr harman would you agree that there is at least tension in the case law as to a narrow interpretation and that being say judge oldham's decision in good solace from a month or two ago versus the cases that he's drawing our attention these exclusions and the other is focused on c b x do you read judge as a right to be saying well any damage to the oil feel really was part of the one domino that fell as a result of the well damage i do not read it that way i read draw out was damage then that would be a different story that is the way i interpreted that but and that was i never even gave it another d interpretation until you raised that this morning as possibly being and i understood where d you were going with that but my the kids of the case thought of this answer that question there's no question about it i don't i don't think i could legitimately sit here d stand today d and with a straight face and tell you that there d is not the intention the case law with respect to how the youth exclusions apply and that sometimes it seems like hairs are being split with respect to whether an exclusion applies or doesn't apply but because of that again just read my argument earlier ege that the insured work on the offer or that the allegations of damage to the offer for remove it d from that particular part well number one i mean i definitely am grateful for lawyers who acknowledge when there's tension because that's what i saw too this is sort of an esoteric question but but can you always as a result of pleading if someone tags on a sort of owe it also affected the free flow of water will that always end up getting around business risk exclusions if you're i'm saying i've been really cool lawsuit is ninety eight percent about the well in the keesing the big stock if they just make some odd extraneous comment about water being obstructed does that mean also the duty to defend will plot under texas law i think it does and that is because there were rules are it any allegation the law in this circumstance which is we have allegations that and here are d not only performing defective war but that  they all have somewhat of distinguishing factor many of which i feel i could be argued in either direction and back when i was preparing for this i thought if i was a law school professor this would be a fantastic case to get to the law school class because our arguments are as you as they pointed out were the most similar or more similar to these facts which are allegations to damage to the work but also allegations of damage to other property and that  discussed in our briefing mr farmer looking at this just from a practical standpoint i might i would be more sympathetic to your argument if the drill bit a gotten stuck in only object all the cost has been invested in in the hole and presumably the landowner is on the hook for a half one million dollars of that point whereas if they had  only drilled one hundred feet or two a good speed it would be a miniscule proportion of that and so i'm wondering does the extent of the particularly part have any reference whatsoever to the ultimate objective of this of this whole i don't believe the reason is if you use that standard d whether the ultimate objective or the  so that the depth of the well while it is reading proposition i believe that's really just a matter of how much of the insured work has been done before the damage to either other property or d other work that he had not yet performed or had performed on negligently had occurred well the problem with a well with a well hole is it's all negligent if it a phone later you know it's how was the talk of her damaged in what sense well the allegations were that there was a lot of debris or slough off the drilling that eventually made its way into the ark were for and made it  dangerous for consumption i'm not saying i agree with that but there are the allegation that's really hard to believe frankly people can allege what they want and i don't see how the landowner could say he's damaged in that regard anyway because you always you drill another hole and you're not drug problem drilling of the well that would be their measure advantage would be the inability to get the water out of the wells just like the all and yes in the same yes and that would be the insurance defective work on that particular part causes damage to other property in the exclusions don't apply not agree with that but here are are sure it was hard to drill a well through there were talks for  the whole house berm right well the insureds not the exclusions not implied so in that instance the insurer gets coverage for the liability for the damage to the house but the insured didn't contract to build the whole house  contracted to put on such so i understand the logic for why the exclusion doesn't apply in that instance here are insured contracted to provide welfare in the lock up for and all the damage associated with it you could be damaged for it and by thank you thank you