and the ensuring agreement also included that the wrongful act must occur within the policy period ensuring that there is also a duty to defend provision now after the ensuring agreement the most important thing that the insurer looks at is what are the defined wrongful acts said that in the policy and in reviewing the policy in the wrongful acts are delineated under the definition of personal injury and this is not a common law enforcement liability policies the personal injury definition includes the definition that period not necessarily the last element of exoneration as part malicious prosecution is trying so in light of that discussion in st paul why security mutual still relevant i think it's so it is in results here the wrong flat is not a personal injury the wrongful act is then the vent that results in personal injury and that's why if you accept into your harbors interpretation the policy is completely analyzed separately and he eats you who collapsed everything together and that's what indian harbor is done they say everything happens at the beginning the policy is completely meaningless because each false arrest is that's not very logical here are my ten minutes is up there i just answer that question on the examination is only one element in the toward a malicious prosecution and so it is not a wrong if you look at the policy section thirteen to find wrongful acts and what it says is that an actual or alleged that's right the person injury in section nothing is not just false arrest the tension of prison or malicious prosecution which is contained in section b there is also a separate personal injury for humiliation or mor is as as the have allegedly thing that happened during the policy period policy piri piri comments on november first two thousand and eleven there is no and no allegations anywhere in the complaint that anything actually happened during notice pleading standard that would be applicable to civil rights actions in federal court but of course that's not the case that we have here here we have an insurance coverage case there are standards of proof with regard to insurance coverage under illinois law and i think that's what judge of specific acts during the policy period is sufficient to trigger insurance coverage notwithstanding what may apply and who are known as pleading standard for a civil rights violation you're saying that's the case also with the allegation of the conspiracy alleged and there's no authority that says i generalized allegation of conspiracy like that is sufficient to trigger insurance coverage and in fact i think we've got the statue of limitations case that say that that the  only have a law enforcement liability coverage of course in st paul the language of the house see an issue focused on the injury or damage as you ron has alluded to and then the injury or damage must result from law enforcement activities must happen within the policy when the policies in effect and must be caused by a wrongful act committed walk inductee law enforcement activities the policy and same define injury or damage as bodily injury is what we have to focus on in the current policy so lisa say that the very thing the language in our policy is more favorable to the insurer's point of view than the language that the court considered in in in st paul because that was focusing on the injury and and here we focus on the wrongful act which then results in personally injury bodily injury or property damage and then in turn the term personal injury is defined to fluid a variety of the insurer one last word about the court's decision the same pov case if i may and that has to do with the court's expressed admonition that it was linnaeus holding to the language of the policy issue and of course we do not see that limitation  case because the terms of the indian foreign policy do not require the offense of moshe's prosecution to be committed during the policy period as your honour's have have noted and that might produce a different result with where where an error is committed and then and then an injury happens sometime later there's a long tail claims and insurance companies not used to that the that's not a reason to say that all of the coverage has to depend on this one event of exoneration of the last the last element of a torrent for example for any kind of a matter of public policy policy have to be worded differently if in order for coverage of time and may extend there over a period of many years or decades but insurance companies and buyers of insurance for that matter are very used to dealing with that type of the situation they deal with all the time in the harbor was  disclosed the situation in armor there but you can't buy insurance coverage for something that's already happened you know when the hurricane charley hit you can't buy insurance coverage for that and that's what we're saying that is the situation here it sure is required for  is generally understood that the city paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for this law enforcement liability special risk policy and it included coverage for malicious prosecution now the expectation of the parties has to be taken into account here they even listed not just malicious prosecution but the other torts that is the expectation they will find coverage for activities assault false arrest those are causes of passion humiliation they are causes of action the insured is led to believe that you are this is a specialty risk you are buying the polic covering yourself for risks that are going to be lawsuits and in this case this if you got a lawsuit from rivera we don't control that in ledges broad expanse of constitutional towards mr  that ranged from the defense rest until the day they walked out of jail and their separate independent torts i think that is truly fundamentally wrong to collapse all of these in the wrong for the wrongful acts or the injury occurred but that's not this case this is a completely different case wander figure was tried convicted three times and so this is the malicious prosecution