and the third of which which i also had the pleasure of arguing with you can vs almost in this case  the purported additional insurer for approximately two years in the meantime issued a resignation of rights on that reservation rights trigger what we can time trigger a third party quote vicarious liability under section four fourteen and restatement now this case proceeded in a world that would proceed before they go in a supreme court handed down this recent decision in carney which makes clear that section four fourteen is only only contains a cause of action for direct liability for retention or control of work in that section four fourteen does not contain a cause of action for  it the court's or judgment actions involve possibilities the court certainly had before it everything it could have had in order to make a determination as to whether or not there's a duty to defend i think that there are there is an important distinction to be  were filed as kneejerk reactions to what the courts were judging the action and certainly the preservation of rights that are are really you believe this court has done so in the past in the fact that you cases that i mentioned earlier that i already dealt that section four fourteen only involves the rights liability allegations i think of the court if it chooses to go ahead and look at the amended pleading and make the determination that and the reason that we moved to stay the case is that once the duty to defend existed the only way they could get out from under that obligation  and done it by and by the way we want all of our money back that we paid to defend it in our position was that in order to address those alternate questions they would have to resolve certain not apply to johnson downs they would have to show that johnson downs is not being held by curiously liable for arts lewinsky things negligence away all is johnson down vicariously liable or is it directly why and our position is that it's not an appropriate issue for him to declaratory judgment court to answer when that's an important issue in the case now obviously the heart of this case is the question of whether the trial court appropriately considered the amended complaint that was filed in the other one barnett case now they seem to i'm not entirely clear as to what their position is but they seem to say that if the underwriters plaintiffs morals for filing an amended pleading more violence certain cause of action is to try to walk a defendant into corporate and somehow that's inappropriate or that the amount of time went by before the underlying plaintiff decided to amend his complaint is somehow makes the amendment improper or maybe a combination of the two are not exactly clear on what their position is but our system is that the case for all makes it clear that what you can't do is an underlying point of there's plenty legal theory that is not supported by the underlying facts and if you thirteen times by the time in all of those cases the underlying plaintiff tried to plead it either initially or subsequently in negligence cause of action that was directly contradicted by the facts you could have either a drag or a by furious liability claim under forward for or against a general contractor bandit he decided to amend this complaint and he broke that cause of action down and specifically play that first address negligence claim and that a vicarious liability point and we pointed out are we asked the court to all the points i would like to address thank you very much insured whether that b p can in this case or whether that be cincinnati certainly they want to keep open the possibilities of limits of coverage for indemnity purposes so that if it looks like pekin is going to walk away potentially they plead to a new complaint and bring them