coverage under its employer's liability insurance policy was started insurance applied to satisfy stipulated judgments and tearing into a personal injury trial where the employer this contractual waiver critter's the exclusion in the star not house i believe that the exclusion of liability assumed under contract is but then i think it's our position that the exclusion is trumped by the exceptions and i'll get back to the positions of the bars i think this is very important when deerfield then one that deerfield has reserved to itself well if it usually is the case law that we've we've talked about in the breeze it usually is a contractual arrangement but it can cases say that if you are bringing a case for soley economic damages in those cases in fact even in the western casualty case that the district court cited his a supporting case law those were cases involving a loss of value or property damage there was no personal injury or death involved so when it's a soley economic damage it has to be a contract a breach of contract where you have damages such as we have in this case personal injuries or rubric and the death of patrick o'reilly those of damages can be brought  entered into its stipulation in the lower court in cook county that although the underlying personel injury suit that exclusion not viable in our case because there is a warranty of workmanship that was in the contract between p s m alicia's and deerfield that was involve a failure to purchase your additional coverage and there was also a breach of contract as to not putting your field on is an additional insurer those are the only contract claims that were pled and sever what remained was a contribution claim that is viable because we had active direct claim against p f demolition through the o'reilly state which is attribution and that's not true the o'riley est still had their wrongful death and survival claim pending at the time we settled the suit with p s demolition so there was a direct claim which means  i think the district court in citing the western casualty case and the cases that western casually cited specifically  western casualty case involves three x exclusions one of which was identical to ours which the exception help the western casualty case did not pay the coverage because of the other two explosions and oak but the exclusion which was identical to ours except that the inevitable khaki language but it was liability assumed by a cantor that was trumped explosions were used and because it was an economic loss the excuse losing elop the exception could trump be excluded but we have different damages that work outside the mormon doctrine and the economic loss doctor that's the case thank you very much there are two arguments that were brought out in its reply brief that i would like to address before the court that really were not developed by the plaintiffs before judge conelly or in their initial grief in the  this notion of this direct claim that the estate of reilly had against p s demolition in their brief they say that the plaintiffs had filed claims for construction negligence that's at the bottom of page three of the initial brief  claim by the estate of our reilly based upon the allegation that o'reilly was not a p s demolition employee that clain may have still may have still been in his pleading at the time of the stipulation but when the parties entered into the stipulation here they had agreed that o'reilly was in fact and employ f p s demolition so to speak sink that plaintiff now in his reply brief wants to try to resuscitate this direct claim that a state of reilly has against against p s demolitions it's not going to give rise to coverage under the policy here for two reasons one such a claim must be predicated on a finding that o'reilly was an employee isn't a convert claim so if he's covered it's not within the stipulation is contrary to the stipulation and were asserting our exclusive remedy provisions under the illinois worker's compensation act and if he talking about in his reply brief and oral argument that he never raised before a judge conelly even if it's before this court as a matter of proper appellate procedure it's not sound because it's contrary to the record this order by judge have a couple this is res seeking economic damages they're seeking personal injuries so we're not talking about the economic loss d rule and an exception to the economical loss rule we're talking about the economic law still has no possible application here and we see that in  tort law applies whether the tort law theory involved strict liability or negligence marmont of course as we know is a strict liability case not even a warranty case court theory is appropriately suited for personal injury or property damage resulting from a sudden or dangerous occurrence of the nature described above the remedy for economic loss was relating to a purchaser's disappointed expectations due to deteriorate internal breakdown or not accidental cause on the other hand lies in contract so yes if there was exclusive remedy provision under the illinois worker's compensation act if or riley was not an employee of p s demolition the same way he was not an employee of deerfield or riley would have a claim for construction negligence  policy that last sentence doesn't say this exclusion does not apply to any case where you the insured make it warranty to another contractor that your work will be done in a workman like manner it refers back to the previous sentence this exclusion does not apply to a warranty this exclusion does not apply to a more and t means we must be talking about whether the liability assumed under a contract whether that liability assumed under contract is a warranty that your work will be done in a workman like manner and that's not the case here the liability assumed under a contract that we argue triggers the exclusion and he's already agreed that the exclusion applies is the co for yes contribution liability must be predicated on the liability and tort that p s demolition may go to the plaintiffs it can't be predicated upon a liability  contract that p s demolition owes to the plaintiffs so even if this court were to do something that illinois law has never done before and go beyond what bloomfield club says where the illinois supreme court says the warrants you have good workmanship is construed into all contracts between construction contractors and go beyond that and say any decision to that there is an implied warranty that employer makes to people like o'reilly and group practice you still don't have any relation between any such warranty and the contribution claim because the contribution claim exists where the person seeking contribution in the persian against whom contribution is being sought both over preexisting duty and torts to the claimant that's why the contribution plane exists and so to the extent that the plaintiffs here have taken an assignment  contribution claim i would say yes they have a valid contribution claim predicated upon the duty that an employer owes negligence to provide a safe workplace to its employees but that doesn't give rise to  plain here because of the exclusion and it doesn't give rise to a direct claim that they would have against p s demolition because p s demolition in the underlying action asserted its exclusive remedy rights under the in the  worker's compensation act to the extent that any claim made by employee against employer to the extent that there is a claim by client gets in wrong right then against us demolition that is based upon them not being p s demolitions employee that claim would be precluded by the stipulation that they entered into or they've admitted that they were p s demolitions employees so no matter how you cut it you don't have coverage under this policy and that's why the search that's why they just record was correct in granting granting our motion for judgment on the plea the economic law school obviously we don't think it applies the rectory to our facts because we have facts that would get us outside of the economic law school because we have injuries and or death but the cases that pla it's pretty straightforward they think these planes can't be brought as tort claims because they are soley economic damages you need to have injuries or death they have tort place which we have through the warranty and through the big fat solution actually you should be able to proceed on those and you should have coverage i think the st forced aired and nine coverage was and i thank you all for your consideration