invest on possibilities and probabilities and maybes and might when we're talking about the actual insured requirement that simply a requirement with respect to standing to bring a contract action that can't be based on attentional and probability involved in the accident was owned by chicago truck leasing the bag that alone is not enough to indicate that it would make those allegations along with the speed frankie stated that enough to say well you know these parties are driving  argument to support their claim they still have they would have to show that this vehicle involved in this after accident was actually want to cover it with estella good to you actually pay out damages in this ever look at the potential for policy and fact the court look at quite a bit of information that was not part of the underlying mack case that look at sense of where customs and practices and shouldn't differ depending on whether or not we're looking at the actual insurer crown or the potential for policy coverage because again the actual insurer probably because the simply who has standing to force the contract on it doesn't make allegations this third party complaint that there's a possible for mis abuser and you don't come in on the character judgement to say we don't have a responsibility well and again i would argue that ott and that i'll receive this tender and one choice is to defend with a reservation rights and then the other choice is to follow their trajectory but that's really incomplete is it because there's a third choice that you have would just like to start out and give you one case that i think will in this case entirely it probably should've done in my brief there's a case constant products versus liberty mutual it's for a whiny elaph third eighty three twenty ten case justice carney says wrote the opinion and this shows when you made tonight coverage generally when we look at it a point we say there's the potential for coverage unless it's clear that there's no possibility of coverage in this constant products what happened is a driver driving a scavenger truck got in the truck and drove away what happened is a garbage collector got out of this truck and he was in front of the garbage bins and the truck rolled in and some man comes along and he jumps in the truck and the guy who was pinned against this fence i don't write it down right because it had an unusual stick and the guy i complained the courts said this is it you vishal admission it absolutely takes the case out of breach liberty mutual always no coverage in this case you can't look at the complaint it just says it's a motor vehicle ok certain motor vehicle so we can't tell one way or another you comes in philadelphia says well hey we have no idea who these people are but remember when it did its denial letter of february seventh it says hey we look into this  struts to google they knew when they got the complaint that google commission is somebody to be struck still so this isn't like well we don't know all we can tell if there's permission so what do you say is this i think philadelphia and i sent him a letter and you know i don't know if you saw that in the file but i sent my february eleventh in two thousand and four on february twenty fifth and i say look you guys you know you stay company you don't know along now annoyed here's the law state farm it looks to me i'm not going to tell you what to do but it looks to me like you have look at this case as the owner of the vehicle you will permitted use or coverage to anybody using a truck but permission and i always thought and claim supervisor if i kept that matter i would call my lawyer save up this lawyer sending missed letters just good or bad or you know if the writers he wrong but philadelphia kevin great a supervisor thought and i guess facts and they made we went outside the four corners of the complaint we went and we got the police report and the police report says this is a ninety ninety five international trout and then they look at their policy say it's not on the policy well you r policies that i think fifty one fifty two fifty three run those pages in the record it was a net thirty days to notify us if you have an additional i don't want however my feeling would be in this wasn't really are you a low bu by dealing with me when you look if it's in the record it's in the record if you look at that when they take this be able obviously chicago crack once it insured and they got thirty days to say hey now it's off of the lease put it on their policy so i think it's a by second token under state farm if you're the insurance company of this or this i feel your act or provide coverage for that owner and for any for minute use or so i think for two reasons there would be coverage you know under the clear you can't say you're not a permissive user as that nothing in a complaint takes it out a permission like the cast of products sadly and i'm say you're saying it's not covered are but the only way you can tell us not however if you look at that complain say that you're right that they can't you know look outside the complaint to see what you know whether it's a cover auto and let's say they did they didn't like that so they did i covered you say that you know they should have done that but in the end the final analysis you have to look to see if they wrongly if they wrongly deny coverage if right and if ultimately the facts do bear out that it's not a list of vehicle that then can you say that they were on leave the night coverage well i think that question step before that is are you looking at some point does the complaint take it out of coverage you can just say i'm going to look at my policy on every agency if there's coverage you've got to look at the come point if the complaint shows any there ok but i'm saying no they can't look outside they got out of it to come point unless the complaint clearly like inconstant products said there's no possibility so that complaint would hackers say yes it would have fifth's but at the end of the day failure to provide a defense cording to the wausau and the low e l cold case merely says that you're stopped from asserting defenses but if you should have provided  everyone and i need to reason is simple it's because when you go to the border you're asking for a judge to make a decision when you deny our here your unilateral insurance got me unilaterally making that decision ed the very last paragraph of the decision the court is talking about this idea that simply because they have the alt the insurance carrier was a primary  they argued that it covered would still be limited to those entities qualify as insured under the policy and that it requiring insured provided defense to everybody driving a vehicle under an owner all automobiles would have to be covered and left the insurer early lest the allegations of the complaint clearly disclosed that it was a not covered yet all insurance companies would not be able to  it doesn't matter if he didn't understand illinois correctly what matters is this when we have seen it all and i correctly answer c was in fact the correct answer and i would submit based on the arguments i've presented that it was in fact the