sure the chain of events is my obvious that's correct yes and that's one of the connections which we would have to prove in order to obtain coverage and one of the connections was what was the reason that the doctors left the vehicle and  the reason was related to the vehicle in leaky the reason for leaving the vehicle was related to their permitted use of the vehicle by the owner to mr levy and so there's a second connection which would also w of proving connection to the insured vehicle and in that case was ten or fifteen feet away so what the courts don't understand to be when he got out of that car to mail a letter which has nothing to do with driving the car and that the mailbox is close you know that he was struck by a car close to getting back into the car i just don't see you know it's related at all to horton thinks you know from the facts is that what mr rhys you know left the vehicle he never deviated from the permission to which ms warren had given him to use your credit and i'm giving you the same hypothetical except that it he was asked to do this by the owner of the car is sort of irrelevant as an it as long as he's a permissive driver of the car the dos case would vacate or void the occupancy place if he drove somewhere in a car and went somewhere to watch the movies and you know five blocks away you know he's right right is there a stopping point here i mean that's really every question if you  problems with it i think as well sleep you try to come up with some other examples of connections and that's where they came up with a permitted use connection as well as the geographic connections but again the decision by dogs for that owner of the current surance but it's more ever it is i mean i'm i'm on the premise that what doors did do was eliminate any difference between the owner and the permissive occupant driver so therefore it would be whether whether it's the owner or very broad thing what we're going to do is add a little bit more other ways of proving the connection and that's why they went to these other criteria not saying it had to be there but someone they want to make rules that can leaker tried to do was to add or give us the court's more examples of where you could have this connection or how the connection can be proven without just the broad connection and i think that's where we have an arc you see we're just to wong had asked him to commit through to do and he never broke a chain of causation so he was he fulfilled at least three or four of the connections to which both courts have talked about and they say that the source of if you course concerned those criteria are examples which they wanted to give to the courts so that they could use those examples in which to find coverage a connection again because of the remedial nature primarily because the characterization by by appellants council that leaky turn primarily on proximity is is not entirely accurate leaky the court was looking for a connection between the claimants injury and the the motor be insured motor vehicle and found a connection by the fact that leaky was an employee of the deemed insured this was a policy that it was a commercial policy issue to  a corporate entity who was using the truck during the course of his employment to get to and from the job site where he was injured and to store and transport the equipment that he was using as part of his duties at the time he was injured this was to someone injured while actually in the vehicle ok so that's fully so therefore we have the permissive driver now in the same position as i understand it as an owner or a employee or anybody else who is otherwise coverage by the insurance i would respectfully disagree with why is that that is because what the court has made clear in this decision and others is that with regard to a so called class one insured who would be the named sure spouse or resident family member you have been and you i am coverage applies regardless of where that person is you have the person was not previously inside a vehicle had not transit it to any accident location in the vehicle it just follows the person it's portable so if else so you would agree that if this person was the owner of the car and exactly the same thing happen to be covered yes so what health and social loose at that exclusively to occupancy as opposed to other connections to the vehicle is void it doesn't say that i don't think chain of events stand her applies differently to the owners and to  drivers what the court did was construct or adopt from an oklahoma court decision a chain of events tests that related to the anomaly presented where you have a an owner or other class one insured residence son resident adult son of the named insured had been driving the vehicle and the nonresident non relative passenger was later injured in their trek to to get help after the vehicle year a class two person would be an insurer whose status as i'm sure it is is by virtue of the person's connection to the vehicle either occupancy use operation what does and olson before it and we he recognizes that insurers are not free to limit that some solely to occupancy but that if the requisite connection as was established and leaky  because of none of the none of the connection to the vehicle that was present in either dogs or or leaky is present here other than the fact that he had one point was in the vehicle transit it to a certain place got out closed the vehicle was no longer operating and walked across the street performed a task and then walked back and was struck and i think that raises the question that your honor said raised during the c relative and what we're saying is that the connections found in dawes in which the whole purpose of the trip related to the vehicle and leaky which i read from the court's decision regarding multiple connections are not present here and if if the court in dawes had wanted to create a rule that any time a passenger or someone operating a vehicle who wasn't a named insured or otherwise a class one  insured got to a location in that vehicle and after leaving the vehicle and not in the process of getting in or out of it was somehow injured in a motor vehicle accident that person was was necessarily uninsured wanted to create that sort of bright line rule the dog's court could have done that but it did instead it gave us this this test regarding chain of events and and we would submit your family member there's still the issue of his connection to the vehicle at the time of the accident he he had simply deposited mail and was was walking across the street his it had nothing no interger relationship between what he was doing and the vehicle other than that you know he was heading back in the direction of the vehicle and we have the situation here with that without limits as recognizing d regarding the claimant's use of the vehicle as part of his job function to carry the equipment to which he went back and forth to get the equipment and the fact that it was a commercial vehicle insured under commercial policy