also important that her very specifically because as the court did not consider in making its ruling it is the only provision in the least that discusses the allocation insurance risks in this case and as we understood from the fourth district in town  very clear that the tenant himself has to bear the the risk he was required under that region of the lease to secure the insurance to secure any risk weatherby personal property real property or otherwise there is nor the provision beach to insurance there is no other provision in the least that required the landlord my client's insured quote obtain insurance governing any risk in this case the court did not consider that provision and if that is to be the importance or the important factor really an umbrella term compassing all kinds of property that we can have it went for the parties went further though in that paragraph to suggest that the landlord would not be responsible for any accidental damage to persons or property  the least premises and it's the in the about language of the court did not consider in its ruling because that language necessarily by definition changes the kind of property that would be considered it must be personal rule probably cannot and about itself personal property is the only thing you can be in or about something else whether it be in a garage on it back in the backyard in the house itself so the parties themselves understood what they were talking about here in the circuit or did not the only discussion is about who is responsible for the kind of damages contemplated within those provisions and there was provisions it is only the defendant that is responsible again the landlord is not landlord has nothing to do with those damages it's the defendant who causes part is intended to say other and in that case it's mutual the lease was very clear that the insurance risk that all important surance risk only inured to the to the end and only with respect his personal property that's it that's different here the only thing that's important to consider is that in all of the cases really cited by the parties with the exception of the nelson vs greenberg decision by the second district and the author one of the persons callahan opinion from this district all of those  cases with the exception of those two necessarily understood that the landlord himself either by an explicit provision lease or implicit language in the least self was to require who was to procure the insurance to cover the building i think that's a clear distinction as to what paragraph and also means when they say property in or about these premises that's a clear distinction between what was used to be insured by the by the tenant here and what was meant in terms of what risk that insurance was to go in for those reasons again because these are or do not consider all of paragraph one and did not consider any of the other programs and lease i fail to see how the court actually ruled on the lease as a whole as different wires the court to do in that is the area failing to consider the lease the whole focusing right on paragraph than in meeting some of the language we believe was there we believe based on that damage their intent be enforced the next court then uses it to his decision as a whole the lease does not reflect any intent that during the course of the one year term the tenant would be responsible for any fire as well as personal property but then argues that only personal property is meant in the second clause when it talks about accidental direct accidental   that one of the most important factors is discussing that up obligations of insurance it's not insurance just like the insurance it's the obligation of your insurance to protect why why is that and it's because the recent question there was a simple five paragraph lease and the only discussion about who was going to be responsible for what was in paragraph five and in that paragraph it simply says council mentioned he's correct there's no mention of insurance in that paragraph but it's risk must be covered whose risk will be dealt with and in that paragraph it's very clear that the only risk is the tenants risk or his own personal property and that supreme court found significant that's different from however what's significant about the order like i said before is what you did not consider in paragraph and the language you omitted in its ruling we understand that paragraph ten has dix mutual this this recent particular is it's much more differently crafted the intent is more clear of the of the parties here based on the language they chose to use and who was to bear the risk correct time does not mean simply personal property it can't it cannot by its very language if we talk about any property we understand what the definition of probably means and then if we said later clarifies property members insurance will guarantee that's what is his client had it's not really clear from the record of that's in fact the case but let's assume it's right and that's the kind of insurance you do when you reduce insurance carries liability insurance why would that be well the cover incidents where somebody causes harm negligently to a person's property things like that the risk itself the real estate personal property that's what it's for so it's only because of the fact that my client might have you mentioned this notion of the small piece of property in paragraph ten as somehow significant to the outcome of this case and this is just for the panel that it's not a significant as you suggest because if you looked at lisa's introductory paragraph the parties there refer to the least probably where the defendant's family lived as the dwelling and then just two sentences later about it they refer to it as the property small piece so that is of little significance in this case because but they chose to clarify it later in paragraph ten talking about property in or about these premises that's significant and that makes this lease different from all the others in those cases and that's what makes the circuit court's ruling deficient my opinion is it didn't it did not it was solely for the building that's correct and again that's because my client did have fire insurance it voluntarily took a policy on fire or fire insurance covering the building but i want to make that very clear again they were required to under the lease and that is