that and whether those cases control this case and both l j dod and national fire why why have why did the judge feel that his hands were tied by national sole negligence on the part of i'm the part of the general contractor that can't be the case correct i think you're right had it so he had to overrule that that there was no next election on the part of the subcontractor  in the primary insured and therefore in the absence of any negligence on any and some contractors the general contractor couldn't invoke that policy that you're  pleading he didn't see jack straw mentioned anywhere in it and then he concluded there's nothing here pertaining to the named insurance there or even even really without getting i think and wall allegations really can't compare absence of negligence to the policy he had to have seen the policy the policy says if the policy and sat there must be negligence attributable to the direct insured in order for the second dip or that the general contractor to invoke coverage of his policy and if there is no language like that then i don't see how we all know what th maybe you know the relationship between jack frost and the and the subcontractor that was attributable for fault in the complaint wasn't made clear not necessarily respect their position fall apart and do you really have to do you really have to have a case that says that your work includes the sec contractors or do we can rely on the general rule that unless it's pretty clear from doubt goes the other way causation part of our he did something and then l l jack died same situation where the employee of the general contractor ran over someone with a forklift i mean coverage is provided by the policy or the provision sulfite anything arising out of the sole negligence of any additional insured or any other there are agents or employees that contemplates more than one additional insured and that means there could be more than one or you would be negligent if you look at webster's definition past the arising out of which i don't believe they can in this case and we go to the sole negligence and we're talking about some negligence we're talking about whether or not the conduct of a one standing by itself in relation to the conduct jac fos is the sole or why doesn't that why did that include stuff contracted that jack frost hired because jack frost has this responsibility to complete this portion of the work if they could have done it themselves they would have done it themselves but instead they hire this case he took on a price list during lunch break to do work that was i view half more for us and he was injured and what they're saying is based upon that that was work that wasn't really being done for us well it wasn't being done for some conficker that that  project means that it rises out of our work to the extent that jack frost brought those individuals on to the work environment sounds like a lot for our good well i think that what the group with this court has said on many eight one is an additional insured under the frost policy yes with limitations yes with limitations and and there is a bar of coverage arising out of work  but we also have allegations against other targets yes so how do you get to the sole negligence when you have these other parts well like i said i think that all the cases all that is for us if we look at other people doing work and so you have a you have a cascade of other characters who are involved and that's how the additional insurance coverage arises what they're asking you to essentially say is that the only situation where that we would be able to effectively deny coverage is i f the only person on the job site and if they're the only person who is doing work then that's the only situation we're not covered and that's not an endorsement sat's indorsement is limiting language specifically so the insurance company and determine what risk they're right instead of  a generous term used without permission he had fairly elevated and he was injured we didn't get permission to for him to do that i sub contractor to give permission for him to do that he took the left and the only evidence in this case is that they said that a deal worked out but it was an unauthorized use so that does not fall under our work and so therefore there when we do come to that conclusion as a matter of law i think that if you're able to review all the relevant evidence