injury personal injury because the reality is that in the malicious prosecution contexts in particular as with the other personal injury offenses the conduct and the injury are inextricably linked so to do that conduct is necessarily to the injury so delicious prosecution one example malicious prosecution when the charges are filed with malice and without probable cause that's the contact late also let me ask you this i get your point about the occurrence of the injury but in terms of looking up the contract insurance contract is a whole the one that's in the record here come the record would be to turn that benefit of the bargain on its head and convert the current space policy into some different type of policy that was trying to recognize would be like a cruel of the base policy and there that is simply not the type  parties and in doing so the court must read the policy as a whole take into account the type of insurance that was purchased the nature of the risks and the overall purpose of it i'm sure if the court looks at this contract which is  use that happened during the policy period occurrences for bodily injury personal injury advertising injury property so we're talking about something that van that's going to happen during the policy period that's going to parties are and interpret in those words he is any reasonable person would you ask yourself ok when was mr sanders maliciously process was he malicious this is melissa was this prosecution  twenty years later when that offense was rectified by the system and he was exonerated any reasonable person would interpret of course mr sanders was maliciously prosecuted when he was wrongfully charge not and this is the tort malicious prosecution actually provides a good example of why that distinction is made here because again we're talking about the requirement of exoneration we have to  persons who add value either convicted or subject to civil proceedings what have you you cannot have a lateral attacks upon a criminal judgment or civil judgment you people cannot sue for malicious prosecutions of because they've been arrested and charges have been filed against so the system requires that there be a favorable outcome of that underlying most prosecution before that st vote for the right of action groups it serves to rebut the presumption of probable cause it prohibits collateral attacks on the existing judgment it prevents inconsistency between the two judgments and it forestalls amount of action policy to activities that were taking years earlier based on what is ultimately up to it as day exoneration again with the parties are ensuring is that the possibility  course focuses on that the actual words of a contract but i think it is important to consider what the broader ramifications are of a ruling that your friends refers to the exoneration rather than the wrongful act the charging of coverage isn't triggered otherwise they allege all of the elements of the cause of action if they're alleging a malicious prosecution based on conduct that occurred i also criminal prosecution that was filed can't sidestep and i core issue that way and then managed to get everything i want to get in my ten minutes and so there's no further questions let me just summarize quickly you know that the lower courts are following i believe more or less correctly this court action about how to deal with the trigger issue malicious prosecution which is look at the policy in applied unusual rules of construction if the policy has clearly stated a trigger you follow that this analysis it says in that case command jordi position itself is more persuasive under the facts of this case the event the offense was committed for malicious prosecution insurance purposes when the prosecution was instituted without probable cause is that is the essence of the tort a malicious prosecution the insurers policy it issued cover of the insured for personal injury that occurs during their policy period here the injury was contemporaneous of the criminal proceedings against them and it was complete long before the inception of the policies coverage and the terminations of the prosecution to adapt the minority rule would strain logic as it would hold that  policy could be retroactively applied to activities undertaken twenty years earlier and would impose upon me insure a risk based on the fortuitous date of exoneration as opposed to the date when the damage  policy period it is inconceivable that the calculation of the premium the defendant paid the insurer in order to purchase the policy included in the analysis of an earlier prosecution by defendants and the likelihood of maybe i misspoke and i was just wondering if the fact that they didn't have an exclusion in the future in the policies of the thirteen and fourteen this is more of an indication that they didn't think there was coverage why would they have put an exclusion in occurrence based policy so when offense is talking about both conduct an injury if you've got another he said talking about wrongful conduct as the trigger injury as the trigger occurred as the trigger all those things are distinction between this case and the other element he says that i'm telling appellate court's decisions issued uniformly felt that the a malicious prosecution he's covering for malicious prosecution cla back and be retried again there were not any new charges there was not a new prosecution back to charges had been dropped at that point in time in new jersey or been a double jeopardy problem there was a single prosecution there a single malicious prosecution and this is not a the injuries lasted for twenty years and the fact that they continued the prosecution continued aggravate those injuries increase those injuries it's like a bomb in an accident and i pray go away and that i may