and let me try to explain that a little bit further and i hope that that will address the link to your service that you raise the the circuit court interpreted the underlying complaint in particular count two the premises liability count against ros as alleging vicarious liability because it referred to defend and remember we're not talking about potential liability we're talking about the traditional way a trial judge is supposed to look at the four corners of the complaint and then same is there a potential for coverage in this particular case i don't know how this case premium for covering additional insurance you don't do it for free the last time i look at that if there is the possibility that this complaint will lead to li your closet who isn't sure you know maybe that's the problem maybe the problem is that you need to abandon this thing let's play said this such person organization is an additional insured leveling with respect to which is specifically to provide that it covers the negligence liability of its named insured even if that negligence liability is legally transferable to some other party to someone else what it doesn't  someone else's neck and that's what this underlying claim does it's already in your position but i think what they're saying when they refer to this particular what is an insurer and these policies is under your interpretation it being with respect to prime first second so that for example when there is an allegation that he failed to supervise that his that the liability for failing to supervise is does is to provide that negligence liability coverage for that negligence liability in effect travels with the liability as long as it's the named insurance but if someone else is liability in this case the additional work rosiness that's that's when it doesn't possibly some shreds of indications here of secondary liability namely the fact that it's the same acts of negligence and they also try to make something out of the fact that liable for the negligence of someone else specifically iraq except that the the reasoning at least that justice mcnulty stuff was a mask of that i kind of let loose but that doesn't mean as it's not ruled out it is for prefaces of offering of the thousands ruled in and with all due respect to justice mcnulty that is a theory that has not survived for example the u b s decision in which she found herself in the north on that same issue u b s and you and some of the other cases involving this and similar endorsements all stand for the proposition that you do have to  bird of showing retention of control and therefore won't plead it because he can't prove it and he doesn't want to have to make the offer or he's not that interested in the various theories trigger or not trip the more serious of the underlying third party planning and trigger or not trigger you're right to a defense not at all and i don't mean to suggest that those motives are relevant to the i don't think that you can applaud agents and employees who for fourteen because it's not a pure agency kind allegation of what sort of control there is here there is only there are two counts that seek to hold prozac liable for its negligence either by itself or through others but still its own negligence its own actions and there are three counts seek to whole rock the name liable for its own sake so there is no cross pollination between those two periods there is no suggestion that prozac might be totally innocent of fault as a factual matter and yet still legally liable legally responsible for the negligence of anyone else particularly in this case rock and that is what is necessary under the under that the  for me under u p s certainly i think i'd have to agree with you and there's an important distinction to recognize between which if you look at the premises liability counters where agents are spoken there is an important distinction between an allegation that rose act is responsible for the negligence of someone else that would be like harris liability and what we have in this case which is an allegation that rosa hecht committed negligence through someone's rose excess of a limited liability company it's a corporate entity that acts through ups everything it does is action is actions through other parties and so to say that it acted through someone else is not to later have based on the facts and discovery supposed u p s it provided the latter that they knew to be defective if that had been alleged in the complaint than in that case might have turned out differently well suppose it had been alleged in the complaint suppose there was no in the course of the complaint in the allegations of the complaint all a l s that is what they did away which you said of course and which the court agreed was not a not for imputed law but what in the course of discovery the facts i reveal which clearly to me show that there was negligence or vicarious liability now as a cause of action and be sustained it by directing very well that would take the underlying case in a different direction certainly and it might take the coverage case along sort of in its wake if you will but that would be but then if we rewind the film to the requirements that a judge is supposed to look at in terms of deciding whether or not you have a duty to defen some allegations s to retention of control even though the theory a spouse under that leading would still be direct liability there would be a step in the right direction i can't say  just simply elect to follow your own decisions since hallmark has criticized you or this business whether you agree with it or not appears happens face to be a scholarly well complaints might later be filed to look into one's own mind and speculate about what complaints might have been filed by a different plan to provide different lawyer or under different circumstances that might even be present that's the sort of speculation that notion of a potential doesn't begin to contemplate potential has to be measured by what's here and potential i submit describes what potentially might be proof that trial in this case what might be proved at trial as to pro flights evidence involving all because it's in that area and supposing the evidence went beyond simply establishing a supervisory duty but that there was because there is nothing in there that necessarily preclude the plaintiff crime introducing evidence of sufficient control but there's laying low something he got in this for example the blueprint in this particular case this particular case suppose he discovered that instruction sheet prepared by rose act as to how the truck should be unloaded then there would be a basis perhaps remaining a complaint that would be and that would this is we i submit a situation of a simple question whether there's vicarious liability or not i think if we agree on anything we agree that that's the question the answer is that without some allegation that bankers like billing and i think when you look at the complaint and when you apply the general principle of insurance coverage which is that these allegations should be interpreted in favor of sentence on page fourteen when he's discussing your argument that your coverage here we're going to buy into his theory is a loser you have made that allegation he says when there are allegations that the additional insured is liable for someone else's x or of missions while blameless itself the coverage is very weak but he seems to be saying and i want to put words in his mum and he is going to have a chance to respond which is why i brought it up because i wouldn't dare do it if you didn't get another bite at the apple he says the coverage could be very real but there has to be some kind of allegation in the complaint that blameless itself that you can't have a complaint where a party is mercy of the third party complaint and unless there's an allegation of blamelessness in there he has deprived you of your additionally surekha you're right is that basically what you're saying when you say it's a loser you're right from this basically is why their interpretation is obviously much more narrowly yours absolutely it's certainly to a certain extent supported by the language they chose to use in drafting  maryland versus one more exceptions to the general rule without giving either the issue or dirty sure any kind of definitive answer to how we how you would handle this problem when you were both a victim of the third party employees it says that the defendant in that case ros that county prozac acting through its agents service employees that's an important distinction especially because the count then goes on after stating all the ways in which it acted through those unidentified parties in paragraph nine that is a direct approximate result of the negligence of the defendant plaintiff was struck by a lot of structural steel and the antecedent for defendant was  rosie the only defendant in fact at that point who had been named and this can play now so it is that is further demonstration that this is an allegation that the defendant rose act was negligent rather certainly but that it was negligent attempt to characterize my argument if you will that the underlying complaint has to allege vicarious liability i want to be very clear about one thing we're not suggesting that the complaint has to express to use the phrase  for this injury the spite having done nothing wrong itself it must provide a context for where the plaintiff's counsel in the underlying case to say to the jury we have no quarrel with anything  all due respect to just acknowledged i believe that the language that is that was used that she chose to use in her opinion that in that case was inadvertently brought i think to suggest that it is perfectly or deliberate as various other landmark insurance cases are earth and i have nothing but respect for her because as we know he and her ability to write but i think that the the language that she chose to use about the complaint about the potential for a complaint alleging something has been misconstrued in the years since that decision was released in particular the u p s decision a panel that she sat on and found herself a minority on  recognise that potential means something other than the limitless possibilities of the universe knowing all close she came to being the jury it sounds like i do now but any of that yet but language that that that she chose to use the reference to potential i think has a has a place in the law but this is the time to rein it in and to sing and to hold  clearly as a matter of law that potential refers to what can potentially be proved within the four corners of a complaint that is consistent with decades of coverage law that is consistent with the pension policy and it is consistent with the determine what it is they have a duty to defend by showing them the allegations of the complaint and determining whether those allegations provide a basis in this case for vicarious life well and also helps you with all insurers by giving you