[00:00:00] Speaker 03: We're going to call the next case Catalano versus Paul State and it's 24-1126. [00:00:06] Speaker 03: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:11] Speaker 01: May it please the Court. [00:00:13] Speaker 01: I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal. [00:00:16] Speaker 01: The way that we see this is that this is a contractual interpretation issue and that there are three primary provisions which need to be interpreted. [00:00:26] Speaker 01: Two of those are exclusionary and one is a [00:00:31] Speaker 01: It is a condition of coverage. [00:00:32] Speaker 01: The condition of coverage is that it is sudden. [00:00:36] Speaker 01: The sudden has been briefed in depth, I believe, in the written argument. [00:00:41] Speaker 01: The exclusion is, I'll refer to it as an aging exclusion. [00:00:45] Speaker 01: However, just in full disclosure of the court, there are other exclusions within that. [00:00:50] Speaker 01: But I believe aging summarizes it up. [00:00:53] Speaker 01: And then on top of that, there is the earth movement exclusion that is concentrated more on in the briefing. [00:01:01] Speaker 01: I'd like to start by discussing aging and move on in order of increasing complexity. [00:01:06] Speaker 01: I believe aging is the most simple. [00:01:12] Speaker 01: There's a difference of opinion between the experts in regard to the cause. [00:01:19] Speaker 01: I believe that aging is just a question of fact that should be left up to a jury. [00:01:24] Speaker 01: It wasn't really concentrated on in the motion for summary judgment order. [00:01:30] Speaker 01: and it was not as intensively briefed as the other two issues, so I anticipate that the majority of the reasoning will be on the other two issues. [00:01:40] Speaker 01: Sudden was the reasoning which primarily caused the dismissal, excuse me, the summary adjudication. [00:01:49] Speaker 01: We disagree that it was a sudden loss, excuse me, we do believe that it was a sudden loss, primarily because the judge focused only on the temporal aspect of the word sudden, whereas we believe the word sudden also contains a connotation of surprise, something to do with whether or not an event was expected, and to give a demonstrative of that, [00:02:13] Speaker 01: If you think about the last five times you used the word sudden in your daily life, it might have been you saw a spider on your ceiling when you were going to sleep. [00:02:22] Speaker 01: That would be sudden. [00:02:24] Speaker 01: That is both instantaneous and surprising. [00:02:26] Speaker 01: However, in the news recently, we saw the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. [00:02:31] Speaker 01: That was sudden to me at least. [00:02:34] Speaker 01: However, that took place over the course of a week or so. [00:02:39] Speaker 04: Isn't there an external temporal limit, though, on sudden? [00:02:47] Speaker 01: I believe in practice, yes, but as a heuristic, I'll agree with you, but I could probably come up with an example. [00:02:57] Speaker 01: If we move to a geological scale, then I'm sure that the [00:03:02] Speaker 01: the relative bounds of what could be considered sudden would exceed human history, right? [00:03:09] Speaker 01: And I don't necessarily think that's relevant to this decision. [00:03:13] Speaker 01: So I agree with you as a heuristic, but I do think that limiting this to a temporal discussion is not fully giving the word sudden its true meaning. [00:03:26] Speaker 01: And they could have used a different word. [00:03:27] Speaker 01: They could have used instantaneous. [00:03:29] Speaker 01: They could have used [00:03:30] Speaker 03: Well, counsel, let me just stop you there. [00:03:33] Speaker 03: I have never heard of a contract using that word. [00:03:37] Speaker 03: They all use sudden. [00:03:39] Speaker 01: Yes, your honor. [00:03:39] Speaker 01: It would be tough to sell an insurance policy, I believe, if it was limited to instantaneous losses. [00:03:45] Speaker 03: Yeah, exactly. [00:03:46] Speaker 03: Just tell me what the district court did wrong. [00:03:50] Speaker 03: The district court basically said, you knew about this for months and months and months and months. [00:03:56] Speaker 03: Something was going to happen, and it did. [00:04:02] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:04:02] Speaker 03: I mean, that's basically what the district court said. [00:04:05] Speaker 03: Tell me in your view why that is incorrect. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: Well, I think the distinction is what was known about for months and months and months was the feeling of vibrations. [00:04:15] Speaker 01: I saw on the news recently that a new Roman bathhouse was discovered in the ruins of Pompeii. [00:04:24] Speaker 01: There were skeletons found in one of the rooms. [00:04:27] Speaker 01: I imagine that no matter how much sulfur they smelled in the weeks leading up to the eruption, the eruption itself was a sudden event. [00:04:36] Speaker 03: Well, here, that analogy is not correct. [00:04:39] Speaker 03: I mean, there was something at the end, the eruption, right? [00:04:47] Speaker 03: Here, the ground vibrations, that was constant, wasn't it? [00:04:54] Speaker 01: Well, we don't know if it was constant, Your Honor. [00:04:57] Speaker 01: What we do know from the record is that there were vibrations. [00:05:00] Speaker 01: My understanding of construction methodology is that, and this is, I mean, [00:05:07] Speaker 01: To me, it is common sense that, you know, you don't receive just one level, constant level of vibration over a period of time. [00:05:14] Speaker 01: Different events take place over the course of a construction project, which would lead to varying levels of vibration. [00:05:21] Speaker 04: For all we know... What does the record say? [00:05:22] Speaker 04: That sounds extra record to me. [00:05:25] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:05:26] Speaker 04: What does the record say about what was happening? [00:05:28] Speaker 01: That there were vibrations. [00:05:30] Speaker 04: It doesn't discuss how often there were or how long there were? [00:05:35] Speaker 04: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:05:37] Speaker 01: There's nothing that says that there were vibrations for months? [00:05:42] Speaker 01: There were vibrations felt for months. [00:05:44] Speaker 01: I apologize if I misunderstood your question. [00:05:46] Speaker 01: Indisputably, I believe the vibrations started in August the year before the loss. [00:05:54] Speaker 01: So it was four or five months before the date of loss itself. [00:06:00] Speaker 03: But I also want to spend some time talking about the earth movement exclusion, because that's where I think... Well, before you move from sudden, can you tell me why invited error does not apply here? [00:06:18] Speaker 02: Well, I'm sure I didn't understand your question. [00:06:21] Speaker 03: Oh, I'm asking about invited error. [00:06:24] Speaker 03: Did you submit your understanding of sudden that the district court adopted? [00:06:32] Speaker 01: I'm drawing a blank on the reasoning there. [00:06:34] Speaker 01: I do remember in the HECLA, the Colorado Supreme Court did determine that the word sudden can be interpreted as unexpected and [00:06:48] Speaker 01: unpredictable, I believe, but I do not have a better answer for your question. [00:06:53] Speaker 03: Okay, thank you. [00:06:55] Speaker 02: In your opinion, counsel, does it make any difference that the vibrations were caused by a third party, not under the control of the insured? [00:07:05] Speaker 01: I do, under the context of the earth movement exclusion, not necessarily in this... No, not the earth movement. [00:07:12] Speaker 02: I'm talking about the vibrations. [00:07:17] Speaker 01: To the point that the tenant, Mr. Stalker, did not anticipate the damage to the floor because he was not the individual causing the vibrations, that makes it more likely in my mind that a jury could find that it was sudden. [00:07:32] Speaker 01: However, I don't think that is the most likely reason why a jury would find it was sudden. [00:07:38] Speaker 02: Well, assuming that he was concerned, could he have stopped the vibrations by canceling the project, or was it a city project? [00:07:48] Speaker 01: It was a city project. [00:07:49] Speaker 01: This was repairs to a sidewalk. [00:07:52] Speaker 01: So this was not under the direct control of Mr. Stocker nor Mr. Catalano. [00:08:01] Speaker 01: So moving to the Earth Movement exclusion, opposing counsel in their brief [00:08:08] Speaker 01: brings up that the earth movement exclusion is able to be interpreted by looking at the plain language. [00:08:15] Speaker 01: However, the plain language would be incredibly expansive if taken to relatively generous means. [00:08:23] Speaker 01: If you look at anything that consists of earth movement and throw out all claims that merely consist of that, [00:08:34] Speaker 01: I mean, where would that stop? [00:08:36] Speaker 01: You could make the argument that the earth is currently spinning. [00:08:39] Speaker 01: The earth is rotating, revolving around the sun. [00:08:41] Speaker 01: I do not believe that to be the type of earth movement contemplated in the policy, but that would be a rational interpretation of that language. [00:08:50] Speaker 01: Moreover, I do not think that the earth movement contemplated by the policy is the earth movement present in the vibrations, because all of the 18 examples [00:09:02] Speaker 01: given in the policy were natural earth movement, whereas this was artificially induced earth movement. [00:09:08] Speaker 04: I mean, subsidence can be man-made. [00:09:13] Speaker 04: Subsidence in mining, you can do underground mining and it can cause subsidence. [00:09:20] Speaker 01: That is correct, Your Honor. [00:09:21] Speaker 01: I agree with that statement. [00:09:22] Speaker 01: However, I don't think it's exclusively artificial. [00:09:25] Speaker 04: Fair enough. [00:09:28] Speaker 04: Let me keep jousting with you about the word sudden. [00:09:33] Speaker 04: And I'll give you a personal example. [00:09:36] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:09:36] Speaker 04: I live in the desert, and we had seven and a half inches of rain in five hours. [00:09:43] Speaker 04: And the place where I live, I've lived there for over 20 years. [00:09:49] Speaker 04: And after this rain, I went out and I saw holes in the ground that I presume were just caused by the saturation, that there was always something there, that over the years something had been building up. [00:10:09] Speaker 04: But finally, with that much moisture in the ground, it caused it to, it caused a hole to develop just like [00:10:16] Speaker 04: Um, and that's not going to make for a very good record. [00:10:19] Speaker 04: I was using my hands and a little noise, but, um, you know, that, that's something that presumably was going on for a long time, but manifested itself all of a sudden, right? [00:10:31] Speaker 04: Sort of like your case. [00:10:32] Speaker 04: This, this vibration was going on for a long time. [00:10:35] Speaker 04: Yes, sir. [00:10:36] Speaker 04: And then next thing you know, your floor buckle. [00:10:39] Speaker 04: Well, is that for you or is that kind of example suggests that what happened to you was sudden or not sudden? [00:10:45] Speaker 01: Well, I believe that. [00:10:47] Speaker 01: Depends on where you grew up. [00:10:49] Speaker 01: I think if you grew up in the Midwest where potholes are extremely common due to the weather patterns there and how the construction is laid down, then that would not be sudden to you. [00:10:59] Speaker 01: You would be expecting that. [00:11:00] Speaker 01: However, if you grew up in Beverly Hills where I understand that the sidewalks are very well maintained, then if you see that after one rain, that would probably be sudden to you. [00:11:10] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:11:10] Speaker 01: Yes, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:11:16] Speaker 00: Good morning if it may please the court my name is Justin zowski and I represent all state in this matter Now there was some discussion as far as factual disputes as far as the cause of the damage But even given plaintiff the benefit of the doubt the non-moving party. [00:11:30] Speaker 00: I think summary judgment was still appropriate in this matter First which I'll touch on we had whether or not this was a sudden occurrence or direct sudden occurrence to the property [00:11:40] Speaker 00: And then even if we were to take the plaintiff's opinion, their expert was of the opinion that the vibrations over time is what caused damage. [00:11:48] Speaker 00: And then that is excluded under the policy. [00:11:51] Speaker 00: All states experts took the opinion that this is a house that was built in 1890, had some structural issues as far as some of the framing and the foundation and the wear and tear of the brick. [00:12:04] Speaker 00: There was some discussion of reference to the case of Hacklow. [00:12:07] Speaker 02: If that was the case, why did they write the policy? [00:12:15] Speaker 02: And are you suggesting that every old house, if anything happens, it's just tough, and there's no coverage? [00:12:24] Speaker 00: No, that's not what I'm suggesting, Your Honor. [00:12:30] Speaker 00: Yeah, policies are meant to cover sudden unexpected occurrences. [00:12:34] Speaker 02: As with all things, property does age over time. [00:12:47] Speaker 00: Not necessarily, it would depend on the cause of it. [00:12:50] Speaker 00: For instance, if a vehicle were to cream off the road and hit the house causing the floor to drop down, excuse me, that would be a sudden occurrence, or say a wind hail storm. [00:13:03] Speaker 02: Of course they'd say that. [00:13:06] Speaker 02: Why wouldn't all states say that? [00:13:07] Speaker 02: The house is really old and so the cars hit. [00:13:10] Speaker 02: That was just incidental and everybody should know that the house is just old. [00:13:16] Speaker 02: And so we don't cover all of that. [00:13:18] Speaker 00: In a situation like that, I think you would have to look at the damage that occurred immediately after or suddenly after the incident of the car hitting the house versus a situation where you start to see the floor drop down over time, which I would think would be more attributed to wear and tear instead of a sudden incident. [00:13:47] Speaker 00: No, what the record shows is Mr. Catalano's tenant had testified that the work began in August of 2020, and that almost every day when he would wake up, or he would be woken up in the mornings of vibration from the work being done, and I believe it was the sewer line they were installing, he first noticed the damage to the floor in January of 2021, January 18th, I believe. [00:14:13] Speaker 00: Now in the context of the let me stop you there. [00:14:17] Speaker 03: I'm sorry so you're saying that the floor buckling Happened over a significant period of time Not the vibration. [00:14:30] Speaker 03: I thought the district court judge Just based it on vibration, but you're saying actually [00:14:38] Speaker 03: The buckling of the floor was viewable over time, a significant amount of time. [00:14:45] Speaker 00: And I understand that distinction. [00:14:47] Speaker 00: It was first reported or noticed by the tenant in January, but plaintiff's expert that they had hired was of the opinion that the vibrations over time caused the underneath joist beams to walk out of their pockets, which then resulted in the floor itself starting to sag. [00:15:06] Speaker 03: OK, I'm just back with sudden. [00:15:09] Speaker 03: So I thought the district court judge said, this vibration has been going on for a very long time. [00:15:16] Speaker 03: Therefore, it can't be sudden. [00:15:19] Speaker 03: And you're telling me that there was something that the tenant was observing over a significant amount of time. [00:15:28] Speaker 03: Not the vibration, but the actual damage. [00:15:31] Speaker 03: That's what I'm trying to figure out. [00:15:33] Speaker 03: Is that true? [00:15:34] Speaker 00: He had felt the vibration over time, which their expert was of the opinion, was causing damage all along to the point that eventually he was able to notice the floor sagging. [00:15:45] Speaker 00: So though the damage or the cause of the destruction occurred over time, the notice or the realization of the damage itself may have been sudden, but not the cause. [00:15:58] Speaker 04: I don't want to use the wrong term from the policy. [00:16:05] Speaker 04: Was there evidence in the record that over time, this house, and I'm thinking about the earth movement exclusion, it sounds like, from what you just said, the expert was saying, hey, this thing was vibrating. [00:16:20] Speaker 04: It was causing the floor joists to move. [00:16:23] Speaker 04: That it wasn't necessarily a function of the earth moving, of settling or [00:16:35] Speaker 04: you know, earth slipping out from under the foundation, but of vibrations causing the structure of the house to move itself. [00:16:47] Speaker 00: That is what the expert was of the opinion. [00:16:50] Speaker 04: I mean, did you agree with that? [00:16:54] Speaker 04: I mean, did you dispute that as being what was happening? [00:16:59] Speaker 00: It was all states experts opinion that it was a brick brick and mortar foundation underneath, um, with framing with the wood and that over time being the age of the house that the brick had begun to deteriorate, they noticed some missing pieces in far as the grout is concerned in the brick structure itself. [00:17:15] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:17:15] Speaker 04: So nobody, nobody was of the opinion that there was settling or subsidence that it was actual. [00:17:22] Speaker 04: that the vibration over time was causing, it was basically causing degradation of the construction of the home. [00:17:29] Speaker 00: Essentially it was the vibrations over time. [00:17:32] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:17:32] Speaker 00: And also as noted in the briefing, the high street lofts condominium association versus American family. [00:17:39] Speaker 04: Let me stop you for a minute. [00:17:42] Speaker 04: If I don't ask you this right now, I will forget. [00:17:45] Speaker 04: So are we at a point now where you would say, listen, we're not saying that the movement of the earth exclusion is what matters here? [00:17:56] Speaker 00: I would say it does still apply because that court, the district court case, reached a decision that the vibration transmitted through the ground does constitute earth movement. [00:18:08] Speaker 00: however slight it may be or how extreme it may be based on the type of work being done. [00:18:14] Speaker 00: There was some mention as far as the Colorado Supreme Court defining sudden is unintended or unexpected in the HECLO mining case. [00:18:22] Speaker 00: That's distinguishable from this situation. [00:18:24] Speaker 00: That was a liability coverage in regard to mining pollution that was done by the insured. [00:18:31] Speaker 00: And the issue before the court was whether or not there'd be a defense owed or indemnification owed under the policy. [00:18:37] Speaker 00: And one of the reasons the court found that is the exclusion in there, there was a pollution exclusion that said that it would not cover the release of pollution unless it was sudden and accidental. [00:18:53] Speaker 00: At the same time, under the liability section, it covered [00:18:56] Speaker 00: an occurrence which results in damages. [00:18:59] Speaker 00: The policy then went on to define an occurrence as an accident or the continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which would result in damage. [00:19:09] Speaker 00: So the court in looking at the two definitions, which obviously were ambiguous when read together, came up with the definition as far as sudden being unattended or unexpected. [00:19:20] Speaker 04: Are you familiar with the Gold King mine incident that occurred down in southern Colorado where the EPA was cleaning up an old mine and breached some very contaminated, dammed up water and caused pollution of, I think it was the Animas River. [00:19:39] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:19:40] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:19:43] Speaker 04: Does that seem like something analogous to you? [00:19:46] Speaker 04: I mean, the polluted water was building up in this little reservoir, for lack of a better term, for a while, but the release of it was sudden. [00:19:55] Speaker 04: Does that sound like the Colorado case you're talking about? [00:19:58] Speaker 00: That is one of the reasons that they explained in HECLA when looking at it in the policy when it wasn't defined. [00:20:04] Speaker 00: As pointed out by the district court judge in our case, in Mach versus Allstate, which is another Colorado district court case, that was a property damage claim for Stucco. [00:20:16] Speaker 00: And the court found that when there isn't any ambiguity in a policy as far as sudden direct loss, sudden means a loss brought about in short time, not something that occurred over time. [00:20:27] Speaker 00: One of the concerns with reading into the sudden definition the way that plaintiff is asking us to do [00:20:34] Speaker 00: is it would create complications as far as other coverage is concerned. [00:20:38] Speaker 00: I think the argument could then be made that if a house is subjected to rain over years or even sunshine, that that repeated exposure could eventually result in a loss when all of a sudden there's rotting discovered or other issues with the property because of that exposure. [00:20:54] Speaker 00: And that's not something that the property coverage is intended to ensure. [00:20:59] Speaker 03: Before you move from sudden, I still, I guess, do you think sudden means unexpected or no? [00:21:06] Speaker 03: I've heard you say the word unexpected, but how do you define sudden? [00:21:13] Speaker 00: Sudden, I believe, is more temporal, something happening quickly following an act. [00:21:19] Speaker 03: So I know you say it's more temporal, but is it exclusively temporal, or is it temporal? [00:21:25] Speaker 03: What role does unexpected play in your definition? [00:21:29] Speaker 00: I think sudden could also be unexpected if something happens quickly, such as... Well, then why wouldn't that apply here? [00:21:38] Speaker 00: Because this is something that took place over time. [00:21:41] Speaker 00: It wasn't something, there was this lack of this temporal relation. [00:21:45] Speaker 03: So the definition of sudden includes unexpected, but this was not unexpected. [00:21:52] Speaker 00: It may have been expected. [00:21:53] Speaker 00: I'm not sure what their expectations were at the time, having a property at that age being exposed to vibrations. [00:22:00] Speaker 00: But I don't believe that was flushed out in the record. [00:22:03] Speaker 03: Well, OK, but I'm sorry. [00:22:06] Speaker 03: Isn't that part of the definition that you've just given me is unexpected? [00:22:10] Speaker 03: Why wouldn't that apply? [00:22:11] Speaker 03: You just say we don't know? [00:22:14] Speaker 00: I think sudden could be expected as well. [00:22:17] Speaker 00: I think when you're looking at something happens suddenly, it is something that happens quickly following some kind of act creating it. [00:22:25] Speaker 00: For instance, it could be extremely cloudy and being in the mountains going on a hike on one of the 14ers. [00:22:32] Speaker 00: You may be aware that there is a danger for lightning and storms, and then suddenly in front of you there's a lightning bolt that hits the ground. [00:22:40] Speaker 00: Though you may have had an inclination or a thought that that could happen, that would be something that happened suddenly. [00:22:48] Speaker 03: So there was no lightning in this case? [00:22:51] Speaker 00: No, there was not. [00:22:53] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:22:55] Speaker 02: Excuse me, Council. [00:22:58] Speaker 02: You said that they were just doing the sidewalk. [00:23:02] Speaker 02: It was a sewer construction, wasn't it? [00:23:04] Speaker 02: And it was being done by the state? [00:23:06] Speaker 00: Yes, that's what I believe I said earlier. [00:23:08] Speaker 00: It was a sewer construction being done across the street. [00:23:14] Speaker 02: It was a sewer being done. [00:23:19] Speaker 02: They were making a trench, weren't they? [00:23:21] Speaker 00: I believe so, to install new sewer pipes. [00:23:25] Speaker 02: And that was being done by the city, not by the tenant. [00:23:30] Speaker 02: It was not just a sidewalk, it was out the street. [00:23:34] Speaker 00: That's correct. [00:23:35] Speaker 00: The city had hired, I think there was a concrete company or another contractor that was doing the work for them. [00:23:42] Speaker 02: And does that make any difference that it was away from the prophecy and show you here a vibration? [00:23:50] Speaker 02: Why would somebody think that if that vibration keeps up, the castle will fall down? [00:23:56] Speaker 00: That is something somebody could be of the opinion. [00:23:59] Speaker 00: I know their expert, Mr. Catalano's expert, in his report had mentioned as far as vibrations in correlation with distance, the vibration itself sometimes becomes more minimal. [00:24:13] Speaker 00: I believe in the record it shows that this was around 40 feet away from the house on some of the work that was being done. [00:24:18] Speaker 00: And so that led to their conclusion that the vibrations caused the joists to shift or move out of the pockets, thus resulting in the floor falling. [00:24:28] Speaker 02: And what did the other experts suggest was the problem? [00:24:34] Speaker 00: All I think to engineer was that the opinion was age-related. [00:24:37] Speaker 00: That the brick itself, when they went underneath the subfloor, the brick had started to crumble and deteriorate with age, just given the length of time it had been there. [00:24:47] Speaker 02: So we have two separate experts coming up with different reasons. [00:24:52] Speaker 00: Isn't that a jury question? [00:24:54] Speaker 00: That is correct as far as there are different opinions, but even if we were to give Mr. Catalano the benefit of the doubt as the non-moving party in summary judgment, the opinion of his experts still isn't covered under the earth movement exclusion and the fact that it doesn't constitute a sudden occurrence. [00:25:14] Speaker 02: So in the court, does Deshaun and Richard Ferb elect the best? [00:25:19] Speaker 00: No, the court primarily focused on whether or not the vibrations themselves constituted a sudden occurrence or sudden direct loss. [00:25:28] Speaker 00: There was some reference as far as the earth movement exclusion. [00:25:32] Speaker 00: And also to point out that the earth movement exclusion, the All Snake Policy, covers earth movement of any type. [00:25:40] Speaker 00: then it does give some examples. [00:25:42] Speaker 00: I know a couple of them do discuss or reference causation such as volcano over an earthquake, but some of the other examples could be manmade as well. [00:25:51] Speaker 00: So there's no distinction as to whether it needs to be from nature or manmade. [00:25:55] Speaker 00: For instance, one of the exclusions is a sinkhole which we know can be caused by improper foundation digging or even a water main break or some kind of error that way created by man. [00:26:05] Speaker 00: At the end of the day summary judgment was Appropriate in this case, and we ask that you affirm the district court's order. [00:26:13] Speaker 01: Thank you May it please the court This is not the type of earth movement that was contemplated in the policy not only because it is artificial but because These are sound waves traveling through [00:26:34] Speaker 01: the medium, which happens to be Earth. [00:26:37] Speaker 01: And to give an example, if an explosion were to happen two miles away and you heard or felt the compression blast wave, would you call that air movement or would you call that the explosion? [00:26:49] Speaker 01: In this case, [00:26:50] Speaker 01: All of the examples of earth movement are things where the earth moves from point A to point B, not stays at point A and jiggles around for a moment and then passes a compression wave. [00:27:01] Speaker 01: That is not the type of earth movement that is contemplated in this policy. [00:27:07] Speaker 04: What about earth movement that occurs when there's an earthquake 200 miles away from you and you feel it at your house? [00:27:14] Speaker 01: I don't believe that would be covered as well. [00:27:16] Speaker 01: I think if you were at closer to the epicenter where the [00:27:19] Speaker 01: Earth shifted, then that would absolutely be the type of Earth movement that is covered. [00:27:24] Speaker 01: But if you're 200 miles away, I do not believe that would be covered. [00:27:27] Speaker 01: Excuse me, I don't believe that would be excluded under this policy. [00:27:31] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:27:33] Speaker 01: And to give a further example, if you were to, you know, cup your hand to the Earth, to the dirt and scream and see the dirt just move away, right? [00:27:45] Speaker 01: Was that the type of Earth movement that would be contemplated here? [00:27:48] Speaker 01: I don't believe it would be, that's, that's such a, a minor, I mean, it's just a vibration. [00:27:55] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:27:55] Speaker 04: So let me, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. [00:27:58] Speaker 04: So you're saying that if I live, if there's an earthquake in my town and it causes my house damage, no coverage. [00:28:07] Speaker 04: You would agree. [00:28:08] Speaker 01: Yes, your honor. [00:28:08] Speaker 04: But the same earthquake that causes that I can feel at my house 200 miles away, it just doesn't happen to be as severe. [00:28:17] Speaker 04: but causes damage coverage. [00:28:21] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:28:22] Speaker 01: To give an example on that specific question, I can't remember which hurricane it was, but one of the more recent hurricanes in Houston, they moved the highways. [00:28:33] Speaker 01: The hurricanes caused the earth to move because of the flooding and the mud sliding. [00:28:40] Speaker 01: Things like that caused a whole lot of disruption to the city. [00:28:44] Speaker 01: That is the type of movement. [00:28:45] Speaker 01: that this policy contemplates. [00:28:47] Speaker 01: However, if you were, you know, I don't think that the hurricanes caused earth movement 200 miles away. [00:28:54] Speaker 01: I don't believe the vibrations traveled that far. [00:28:56] Speaker 01: But let's say you lived in New Orleans and you felt some of that movement from the shifting in Houston. [00:29:03] Speaker 01: I don't believe that that would be covered because the earth isn't moving. [00:29:07] Speaker 01: It's just vibrating a little bit. [00:29:10] Speaker 02: It's not moving from A to B. [00:29:13] Speaker 01: It would be covered in New Orleans, but it would not be covered in Houston under that example. [00:29:26] Speaker 01: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:29:28] Speaker 01: I'd yield the remainder of my time unless there are any further questions. [00:29:34] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:29:38] Speaker 03: All right, thank you. [00:29:38] Speaker 03: I think we're gonna take a 10 minute break and we'll see you in a bit.