ammunition in it we had on loaded in the vehicle if rice went off and injured a third person who sued him and the question was whether he had coverage on his own all over the house and whether it was connected to a use of the automobile which the court decision but they rejected about four tests and they adopted a test that when i get the words exactly right then it was whether it was the the act the negligent act causing liability the debris is everywhere according to the complaint ants and whether she had a karmic it's mother issue here of course what difference does it make whether it was a car her injury whether it was a wheelbarrow a shopping cart a flat car she's in a retail the store a grocery store and you're in the parking lot and they bring your you make your purchases and they help you to transport your purchases the load and your car in the shopping and then you trip and fall in the parking lot because of an unnatural humiliation of unloading or loading from the vehicle and then you in the store at the restaurant is insured because right now it's not in there and not in their sidewalk they had a five foot hole that went down the sewer i mean is that but for th the person was loading the vehicle over liability resulting from the loading of the vehicle and here are allegations are the liability resulted from the maintaining of the store in a in a negligent condition with debris spread everywhere that's not appeared trying to be conducting here too but this is not about a verdict you want to give over this isn't about the allocation of responsibility for the accident this is about triggering a duty to defend a very relaxed standard that the actions could potentially be within it the duty to defend arises is triggered relatively easily if there is potential cover and here there is plenty of evidence of potential coverage and the duty to defend bullen's complaint on this both his complaint could not be any clearer as to whether we were doing was using the vehicle and whether we were loading the vehicle or complaining almost was drafted as if this question was going to including loading or unloading really balling very carefully puts in her complaint that we're loading about seven times clearly we are loading so we are clearly using there's also ample evidence here in their own complaint that we were this pretty much this she is flowing we're going to be she's look she's assisting with i mean great team really wish she's put this you're a team you're both local council wants to make a lot of hang out of well who do so the minority associate wearing a blue apron is insured under her motor vehicle puffs it is a little odd but it said i said crystal application of her policy users with commission loading i don't understand the concern that the council has about what analysis we use these are in the short that means they have a duty to defend us period that you need is triggered the duty to defend a very mild a very relaxed their policy with their words says users and loading so if you're absolutely right there could be i thought of a couple other analogies that would be just if there was a bottle but she was loving at the time and whether it's her being a first part using the process of love yes that's covered event i think i hear her i see some raise eyebrows but if you apply their language there with their policy if she's loading and  if it's related to the loading i think you have to do an analysis as it relates to loading you couldn't just be he gets given on the way if you've got a bundle of things or a hand and she you know she trips because she doesn't see it or she stumbles over a parking spot while she's loading read the other section before you even get to coverage you read the other section with it and then make to have to make a determination before you find that the person's i'm sure for to trigger the duty to defend you have was used repeatedly in the in the in the is that we narrowed the liability rose from the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle because the word more vehicles use repeatedly because the work the fact that when i can boys were loading stuff is that w occasions where the duty to defend and whether or not there's insurance coverage with liability they're not always joint of the him are they married there were times where i was found to be on duty to defend and yet after the result of here we get to hear those allegations of this policy says there has to be allegations of cover by injury caused by the use of a motor vehicle which the courts interpret how what is used mean we have never get a supreme court talking about