ensures an obligation to defend the allegations of a complaint far less than what is necessary to even survive a motion to dismiss this year of her house or let's get right into but in the indiana surance case there were statements at issue whether they were the evaluation that were done of the plaintiffs or the allegation that complaint of was in competent they made those specific allegations in the complaint here what is the proof because somebody just know what evidence do you have to question of what the defamatory lies in making your comments about the indiana insurance case you're talking about harm but the question that dutch rover myself are getting at is different what's th defamatory statement to begin with that you're relying on in your case we're not relying on a specific defamatory statement but you but my point is that under indiana insurance  don't know whether it was the direct t v programming that was alleged to be what resulted in the harm to reputation and goodwill i'd like to point your honour's to one of the cases  girl's basketball program on fox and the defendant successfully a seat had that case messed at the trial court and on appeal the indiana court of appeals reversed it said the mirror indiana law for any of those you have to have a statement of the family tory statement or to a statement in some way that touches on the reputation or says something derogatory about your client don't specifically state that then that of summary judgment if you don't know that how can you succeed because in the indiana insurance vs north vermillion case the allegation that triggered the duty to defend where good reputation in the community and after they fired him they deliberately willfully cause him harm they harassed and they embarrassed him they subjected him to ridicule humiliation he was damaged in and in every possible way and that those allegations fall within the described offenses for which coverage  well in all of those statements that you've just identified i did not hear one that was a statement about falsity or fear or defamatory they're all conclusory statements just as they are in this case but there were  attached to that i have the complaint alleges that he was terminated and  the particular statements were actually false the only allegation was that it impedes impugned the integrity of the plaintiff in that case that was sufficient to trigger a duty to defend because the it's a privilege for me to be here today i will pick up where the panel left off because i think the panel was very astute as was the district court in observing that there simply was no statement here but i have a question for you the first i think we need to look at the directv amended complaint and where the allegations about the individuals employment status and manager status arises and that's in the very beginning in the party section where directv a sedentary it's basis for holding the individual owners liable for making the decision to broadcast direct t v programme means without authorization but if you look at the fact section and if you look at the causes of action section there's no mention whatsoever that any of these activities were employment related or had anything to do with the management or anything to do with an employment connection whatsoever and between anyone who subscribes to cable internet or satellite t v it simply doesn't exist and when you look at the offenses that are a numerated in the endorsement it makes sense that these are offenses that arise in employment situations they're offenses like related practices liability insurance only applies to claims of fine employee against an employer and when you read the offense that makes sense i think that goes a little bit far think there are some wrong answers that could apply to for instance seasonal help or temporary help but there must be some employment relationship and that simply did not exist or now i'll move on from the statement issue even to that's a question for you both individual owners of m c i their individual insurance carriers with respect to this issue and viktor beingness actually went to trial on the question of whether or not statement and whether or not it was covered why did it go to trial do you have any sense i suppose to be decided on the papers and the allegations i don't see honor your honor i don't know the answer to that because we weren't even aware of the existence of that lawsuit until after it had already gone to trial so we received the findings of facts and conclusions of law and that was really our first notice that there were any other lawsuits much less two other lawsuits and that brings me to another basis on which i believe the record decision should be a defamation libel or slander doesn't matter got mc i was not a party there i know it doesn't matter and that's an argument that was raised for the first time by appellants in the reply brief on appeal and i mention that for two reasons the first because i believe that way that court would like but in that decision the sullivan court the indiana supreme court rejected the very test that the parents of advance found that test was outdated and decided that it's going to join the majority of states that have  otherwise be unfair to enforce issue lucian well here two of the three appellants not only had a full and fair opportunity they actually did litigate this very issue to a final determination the third  and should not have a third opportunity now any other questions an issue because you before i move on to the final pieces and then the final pieces which you've already touched on a little bit is whether it's employment related and the final point i would like to leave the justice with is that there is no more of an employment relationship between martinsville in direct t v than there is between any other individual and the vendors with whom they subscribe to pretty will service internet service or so one would not support a recovery under law they would be groundless and the defense to them would be that the allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief or be granted as in a motion to dismiss under trial rule