exclusion under a homeowner's policy specifically under arizona law and in the setting of concurrent negligence or causation whether there there must be an independent negligent act that exist and the fact that he evaluated all the issues that present themselves in this case on these facts and the fact that the court the appellate court in arizona decided to go down one track with one line of cases while other court minnesota is very similar also that's the case involving the pail of water that was in appropriately tied down for transportation which then fell off and fortunately struck the motorist behind him that  really comes down to is it's our position that the court of appeals i was aware of the different take on the issue and decided to go one route to construe things extremely narrowly against the insurance companies when trying to apply exclusions and the when it comes down to all the other cases cited by the court in support of the loading and unloading exclusion for several of them are actually for the expansion of coverage district court level it didn't bother looking at cases like that and when and like camera and like partridge in that case what you have the individual who file down the trigger mechanism on a gun making it a hair trigger mechanism then takes that gun puts it in this car with some buddies goes on the road shoot rabbits and in the car the gun goes off because they're off law they were out in the car the question the commerce policy you can have that that gun could go off if the individual is walking down the street or running in the woods as the markets were found with a completely independent unrelated non event that by itself  it doesn't function properly would that be under partridge in the homeowners would cover of would it fall under an exclusion the and automobile you know that may come closer to the park or so the case because the assuming that that the repairing of the car seat was something that was directly related to the that is was injury producing if the repairs absolves  thing there's not much of a star case law on this point and we all know that the but what we do have is teachings from the arizona supreme court about that that particular exclusion and yes it applies sometimes in the context of an  policy which is a coverage clause as opposed to an exclusion in the homeowners but we're not looking at the burden of proof which is all that effects we're simply looking at how the auto policy sorry how that child restraint and ok so let's say that i have a bad neck and saw which is like a next thing in my car and everyone knows that but they forget to load it in and then i'm injured several in the failure to load causation issue but it's simply look at the at the point about the use of a vehicle the court found that in that case there is no way to extricate the vehicle and be vehicle out of it there is no hazard here if you look at those car seats as a wrist sitting in the in the porch where the mother left them for the buffaloes to put into the car when the two of the children the car seats by themselves court used very strong and very specific language it said that it boggles the imagination to have the insurance company issued a policy that provides coverage matter anything there's no further analysis that is necessary you don't have to figure out whether it's independent whether it's related anything else it really just doesn't matter on the i think that's what they just reported here if you're simply took the simplest approach is something else  narrow issue that the district court looked at here and we apply what we have for the actual law in the state of arizona which is the teachings of released and of more ari we have to conclude that the use expected expressly intended to cover what happened there here however we have a personal liability policy issued on a renter's home that is a rental home that the insurance on the renter the insurance failed to put the seats in there in their automobile at their own house what we're trying to get here though is coverage from a policy in a different property to with us i think the reason expectations doctrine here applies long issue i don't think is a maintainable position to take in regard to camera that was has been rejected by the family in court as far as the direction that they want to go as well as all of him as other progeny including the barge case which is not progeny but the mine itself up with those cases although not cited i believe there was an affirmation of the barge opinion as an unpublished opinion and as a footnote which i don't cite and i'm not saying has any authority in any way except that it does  process of the division and in that footnote to or talks about how it rejects the proposition it's all of us in size with the other california courts it's the courts are free to do what they want and in this case as far as it goes it is arizona be heard all state even address ban when anyway it wasn't addressed in the brief hasn't been addressed previously but the policy decisions as to why arizona should not apply the current arizona law and address policy decisions about exclusions and or insurance policies for the benefit insurance companies i don't think is the proper venue for that argument and i think it's even when it should be addressed same thing with the rental property issue whether that's not something has been presented to the court i'm here for testimony about expectations of coverage certainly have an expectation of coverage but he also testified is that as in his in the excerpt of records in read the policies and their subject in objection by counsel during depositions that had there been ten coverages and was only aware of one of them still expected all ten not just one thank you thank you thank both counsel for your arguments this morning the case so allstate versus most is submitted