years and united states citizens in two thousand and six moon and hyde move next to the state and lee majors and stephen smash the two were dating at the time they would later become married in two thousand and hide in the bushes and jump in and jump out and scare him over a two year period it that to borrow a family file multiple mug protective orders against him finally in two thousand and fifteen one of the he was a mr majors was arrested for violation of one of these protect the borders he was subsequently released on bond and on september twelfth two thousand and fifteen he ran over misess barra almost killing her putting him in hospital for weeks he was rescued arrested for that crime and charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon there after he was held without bond for some period of time but then it then the bond was reduced and ultimately it was reduced to called the police at five o two pm telling them that he was being threatened by by mr major city had a gun the police arrive thirty minutes later knocked on the door there was rustling at the windows mr honor but in this situation there have been very first of all there's a distinguishing there is a distinguishing factor in the policy in this case which distinguishes it themselves are and second of all there have been in portland changes in oklahoma law and changes throughout the country that the really call for this court to revisit this issue but in terms of the differences in the policy the policy at issue here has a separation of  clause in this is a critical was in this policy it and actually there are two policies there's a liability policy a number of policy but the separation of church clause it tells the ensure that they have their own policy of insurance it makes a separate policy for that ensures that the issue was not addressed at all in the cells or case either the policy didn't have it or the court didn't address it we don't know which but that in when the  in the case is is there an occurrence and whose perspective do we look at it's the williams position that you must look at the insurers purse bet give to determine whether or not there's an occurrence and they're the ones paying the premium and especially when there's a separation of insurance clause which tells you that your policy it is fundamentally in failure to look at the person something the perspective of some third party or some other who doesn't act after you commit your negligent act when there's a separation of insurance clause that's a critical distinction which should provide a basis for this quarter to revisit the issue or the second issue has to do with the reasonable expectations the reasonable expectations doctrine was adopted in oklahoma in the max true plasters headaches less than two weeks after the that doctor is a hallmark principle of the insurance interpretation in oklahoma since nine hundred ninety six when it came after nearly every insurance coverage case addresses is there a policy ambiguity do we need to apply the reasonable if you have those questions in your mind open a whole lot of demands that you consider the reasonable intent expectations of the insured and in this case there are reasonable expectations of the insured are i bought a policy of liability insurance a policy that's probably the most important policy in the us we're going to have in this room i would expect that monitoring in my own negligence is cover that's why i don't buy it because somebody else might do something after the fact after my mind negligence and take me outside of the here and here you have to show that there was an accident right correct and that the accident the fact that there was a separation of insureds clause and it was interpreted in a bathroom and not intervening based on the plain language of the policy it was not considering whether there could be one or more reasonable interpretation that's the key change in oklahoma law is that in the one we adopted match to plaster if you can come up with it if we can sit in a courtroom you come up with who reasonable explanations for the yourself what the reasonable expectations of an insured are and then you are when i purchase insurance i'm purchasing this to protect against mine and widgets and i want to get really quick hypothetical that i think will answer this for you oklahoma phone rings and i get distracted and i go inside lax and that's just that's not good here's the problem will salazar if two children come up and start playing with my that loaded gun and shoot each other that's negligence and i've got but if the homeless people or gang members come up and get in a bike with a gun and one kills the other one and it's an intentional act i don't have coverage that makes no sense from my perspective my reasonable before i really get to anything else the court is being asked to reverse a summary judgment and that will be a global there is a universe of facts or a set of facts established by the summary judgment papers that i think will govern the court's review and the courts in the consideration a motion for summary judgment was followed by state farm with respect to coverage issues that motion begins  six of the record and the statement of facts is that pages ninety seven through ninety nine of the word and then a response was made to that motion and that starts at page two twenty eight and the stating facts in response to the motion for summary judgment begins at two thirty eight and in a page two forty one of the record then follow because the appellant's believed that the case should be stated are based on a one page petition at least with respect to claims against shops and even against majors a one page petition that appears  there is a bald statement that the gun that was used to kill mr barr was only bot mr snipes there's no allegation that he cause it uses a phrase that this kind of memorable it asks us to look to the immediately attended attendant causative circumstances and that sort of a direct cause  not on when the facts that contributed to the injury occurred but on the targeting and if you do that you look to the direct cause of the direct cause was the intentional shoot the murder now true case and that was the case that the oklahoma supreme court decided in response to a sort of questioning from judge stan eric holder and max produces that is certain cases where there are  ordinary name of something that is something that happens by chance as opposed to something that happens on purpose and i don't think look that definition changes according to the perspective with a gun to be in a position to make a deliberate decision to shoot someone else there has to be a gun manufacturer there has to be gun sale there has to be whatever has to happen with some spots and  you for your arguments this morning the case is submitted