ninety nine percent is left for the contribute to eat and the same is true it could be ninety nine percent on the part of the contributor or and one percent on the part of the contribute  just be the alternative leading situation we're talking about early in the early in the proceedings making a decision on how you wish to proceed here you proceed by my alternative please especially in light of some of the cases of talk about this continual of control you never know where indemnity might might start and contribution and or vice versa you don't know what the facts are going to be with your pleading why can't you someone plead your through ok we're talking you were talking about contribution we're talking about the defendant and the defendant pleading when we're talking about the coverage we're talking about essentially the plaintiff complaint and how that is going to be true if we look at the defendant and the defendant's rd party complaint and then the defendant if the seeking contribution  the rd party complaint count one for contribution count two for indemnification if they're saying that they're not liable then they're saying they're entitled to a not guilty no there is no relationship complaint are the allegations the defendant was negligent through its agents officers and employees eat that's you know nothing about vicarious liability on the in saying there is no vicarious liability known for one under section four hundred and fourteen of the restatement and then going on to say if vicarious liability is but in pekin versus wilson that the court did say that the duty to defend is much broader and that's why we can go outside of the exact language of the complaint in order to try to make sense of what is going particular action and in cars in in pekin versus wilson the supreme court looked at holabird and sad you know if we can go beyond the complaint and that's what i'm saying here because going beyond the complaint takes you to the rd party contribution money which contains the fault apportionment allegations strain to the i want contribution i want you yokoi in the state of illinois in the supreme court i believe i have a responsibility to the law i believe we all have a responsibility to get it right i believe the being given your right as we are defense and to say that we're going to wait until the pieces try if it is trying to decide whether coverage was right that's simply not answering the question why and agency relationship then you get your money back this is not the way you should they say to run a railroad we have the obligation historically going back to seventy seven with all the apportionment coming down to the present to see whether the law is consistently applied there is no vicarious liability under section four  when we do that's a great question that we never got to hear and i think this quarter and your political work is in the business of deciding issues that are not squarely before the reason of what the way by the way happens to be because the only liability that would have written them separately which a lot of titles it's all good but but that's exactly what you would expect if the if the only liability on our current was like yours so sure we never got to assure the termination of all these issues that happens more often than  which is why the defense of the nation is constructed as it is is there any problem with edging or or pleading vicarious liability as well or it just this is a strategic  says the relationship is that of a contract or two independent contractor that's another of the colville with these cases where who presupposed based upon relationship nobody nobody in this case believed that there was an agency relationship there but tween i c c and in phoenix th couldn't foreclosed the possibility  sufficient for an easy relationship in the carney case with those in this case because carney clearly says there is a distinction between dir