david treuer for appellant metropolitan girl builders i would request three minutes for rebuttal course you know as i was reviewing the briefs to prepare for today's arguments i realize that this case really boils down to one fundamental issue related to insurance coverage and then the issue is how is a court to look at the allegations of the underlying complaint to determine whether there's a potential for a duty to defend we i know we've brief a lot about the contents of the property damage and actually we don't disagree on a whole lot on those issues i think a lot of illinois is very clear that if you're dealing with a case where the underlying case involves deficient construction that if that's the only thing that's being alleged in the underlying case then there isn't an occurrence and there isn't property damage however i think we're also in agreement th there is damage to something else other than the insureds work then they have can potentially be property damage or an occurrence so does that mean that the cost of all construction all those buildings and fell  allegations that he sure was the owner of the building suffered damage to personal property and to damage whose work there was other than what metropolitan was doing the well hey i think that's where there is any ambiguity and what the complaint is alleging and b there's kind of this hole in the law after the  then probably would not be true in the case of a general contractor right which is where everything was right in the question then is whether what is the underlying complaint mean when it says that the party they allege is the general contractor damaged work that was not its work because by definition the general contractors work is the single project which is why the acuity case said we don't think that this rule would apply here is the fundamental question of how to support look at the allegations of the underlying complaint and the was crystal clear that the allegations are to be interpreted most liberally in favor of the insured and that if there is exclusively and say wait a minute they engineer ledges that they paid one million eight hundred thousand dollars for real property repairs demolition construction and other associated expenses they don't mention proper personal property in there so therefore we get to assume that they didn't pay any of the one dollar for the personal property and there were no cockroach actually covered property damage no occurrence we say that that unusually narrow interpretation of the underlying point and it also takes underlying complaint in the light most favorable to them which is the exact opposite of what a court is supposed to do you're supposed to look at the complaint in the light most favorable multiple times that part of the day which the chiller suffered was to personal property and it's also really interesting if you look at the way this complaint is drafted that when you get into the later  for coverage they have a duty to defend if there wasn't fact personal property damage here to show worst personal property whatever that was could have been a laptop computer that they had on site maybe they still took all the expensive oriental rugs out of the building and put them in the basement and they were all destroyed when the building collapse we don't know why mad about being underlined case i have no way of knowing the only thing i know of in their line cases it's still i'm going so that's probably it that's an complaint and the fact that he should look at the complaint as a whole all and not just pick the one paragraph that they think is dispositive here and if you look at the complaint there's a whole implied traditional illinois law o construction defect was expected or intended whether the damage that flow from it and there is no way that a contractor could anticipate that the client would have some sort of personal property i'm site that may be damaged by its deficient construction so for those reasons unless the court has any other questions we would urge the court to reverse the circuit court on its findings that there and their policy was not attached to the underlying pleadings so they don't have it in terms of taking a look at you know what this cover all can do is look at what's alleged and it's alleged that their policy covered  just a few quick points of response to the argument the council made the st night when you chris well i i think the twenty years of precedent is clear that if it if there are no allegations of damage to something over abandon the insureds work it's not covered but this complaint is loaded with allegations of damage to personal property now it is interesting listening to her argument because she's was required to make oh well you know maybe a i g policy only covers the real property didn't cover personal property or all the things that she talked about where there was some even a scintilla of doubt has to be resolved in  because with our bad policy of it and quite frankly i think that the assumption with respect to the policy would be flipped by as a property policy and doesn't have contents coverage i mean i would  this case and they made the point that the question of coverage should not hinge exclusively on the draftsmanship skills or whims of the plaintiff's counsel and i think on the best case they  have here is the underlying complaint maybe not the greatest craftsmanship here but what the coroner in the western casualty actually said is the complaint nina alleged or use language affirmatively bringing the claims within of the policy as the question of coverage should not hinge exclusively on the draftsmanship skills or whims of the plaintiff so in other words that cast of looking at poor grass friendship goes in my favor the insured can take advantage of the fact that the underlying complaint is poorly drafted and it missed raises the potential for cartridge but an insurer can't and that's made the case we have here although i would also point out they rely on this paragraph n