simple contract for shelter and change for friends and i don't think that that is certainly what is it issue here based upon the fact that you don't like most of those other pieces here or there are two educated  to responsibility for damage to property caused by the water damage to the tunnels and there's a number of significant differences between this case of the dick's case and some of the other ones and follow there are a number o tenants don't do it and charge them which is exactly what peak insurance is attempting to do the situation second difference is that in this case what was the rationale for that you think was erroneous the the group of the murders reported purchased c d o policy for third party clients in this case the landlord is a third party to the damage the house they're responsible to the landlord that c t o policy has to pay for the damage that they cause there trans policy which i also think distinguishes this case from any of the cases that have been cited for the court because there are there are i think and i can't tell you the name i apologize for that i think there's at least one other case where there was an insurance and and that was considered to be  no no circumstance because maybe it was a nationwide i can't remember somebody else didn't have insurance but it didn't matter because it didn't apply for this type of thing so i think there's one case out there that they're the real issue seems state that is his feeling on this case and that was you know how can you sell them in at a little discussion on a nationwide case so there are a number of differences and with regard to you know between the  lease between advanced parties that took into consideration and had only been there in the phrase from their skins when you consider all the facts and you consider the unique circumstances of this case of you believe it is clear that the part insurance is a simple way that the property owner of teens insurance that covers the laws at insure there is no question of fact the about the and that i would just state your clients that they are responsible to put the house and back in order on the walls we induce floors it's as plumbing work i'm not sure what that means  it in the same condition that they started it there's nothing in the cincinnati case that comes close to that correct well your honor if you look at the appellate case law in the supreme court case will you see all sorts of policies that come close to that and also incidentally insurance is recognizing is that after dick's there's a new default setting if you look back a cincinnati insurance in india say unless there is an expressed provision to the contrary we presume that we're more is going to have the probably casualty ten it's going to become common sure by paying the rent and that makes good sense in fact it leads to the type of allocation of liability they had under this lease and now get into that because even if you want to look at the first rationale the property the lease would be deemed terminated in thirty days not the lessee would have to pick it up and make those repairs themselves i think that's a very significant difference now the limitation of liability in paragraph thirteen  lessee would kiri such insurance as lessee deems necessary that's exactly the provision in dish or honor and that is the allocation the specific and direct and express allocation of responsibility as to in other words any time the landlord is sued the murphys happen policy that covers the average is in on or about the premises for which the landlord my kid sued whether it's a person enjoying that property or someone working on that property or if the her fields are running a business out of that property the same but here the parties have carefully allocated the risk of loss the murphys have to cover their personal what american national bank and trust company for said water says so how are they not responsible to contribute to these did or pay all of their peers because again the release draws even clear distinction and this is the distinction that you find in the paragraph cost for insurance how do we know we didn't increase the cost of this particular policy in this case we know that from looking at the policy which is the separate affirmative matter that ten of which are defeats the claim and then he seventy six  it doesn't have to be under paragraph ten of the lease there just has to be property insurance that covers the logs in other words the allocation of risk is if you have that property insurance the other one or both of them who have insurance on the structure because it doesn't say in the event of the last words policy or the event the legacies policy just as an event policy so certainly could have been a situation where they both had insurance on the structure the tenants obviously which would include obviously the payments that they have to issue and the cost there of the insured patients so going back to councils organised about dicks in the fundamental teaching it's not that it's that all to seek supervision against the other regardless of the relative degree of fault