our final case for today is scottsdale insurance company versus columbia insurance group incorporated we should have mr van reden and mr schwartz yes your honor appellate defendant columbia insurance group this matter is before the court on appeal of a final judgment from the united states district court for the northern district of illinois here columbia's insured t d s mechanical and the plaintiffs which are pretty management and development and rockwell properties entered into an agreement with th to provide back services on a particular construction projects as is so frequent these situations pretty management the general contractor and rockwell the owner of the project required that th provide commercial liability insurance and that they be named additional insurance on that insurance in certain circumstances so under the columbia insurance policy which to be a particular coverage was available for perry and rockwell as additional insureds only with respect to liability broaden the program rockwell arising out of looks like one of those very common cases where the injured man is an employee of t t age they're doing the age factor work and their says unprotected space and he very unfortunately falls down but he's not going to be bringing this lawsuit against t v h n a probably because of workers compensation laws but the fact that the general contractor and the owner and so on rock well against the th however in the case there are in the policy there are limitations and those limitations prevent additional insurance coverage under the policy for the sole negligence of prairie made in the underlying complaint when compared to the policy language and judge really did as he's allowed to do look towards the rd party complaints in order to come to that determination however we would and that is that in illinois what columbia argues is that at some point there must be a limit on that test if not then in every circumstance where an employee contractor in a similar situation is hurt or in every circumstance where allegations against a general contractor failure to monitor or supervise under policies like this which are so prevalent there would be a duty to  situations where the sub contractor might be doing carpentry in a completely different area of the work site and not the other things that are just not so closely linked here this case is all th is the fact that th was the employer of the injured party and the problem here is that if all it takes for a finding of coverage under policy such as this is simply the fact that the sub contractors and poorly employed the injured party that really swallows the limitations that are present in these types of policies the policy does not state that prairie and rock will be provided with additional rockwell's duties do not allege that th really had any involvement with the accident other than the fact that t d agent for the injured party if that was enough frankly your honor then the the subcontractor was liable for the plane to centuries happen to be one of the many sub contractors on the job so it's at least possible that th was liable just several levels of speculation involved in that analysis and when it's allowed it's really hard to imagine any circumstance under this policy language where there would not be coverage additional insurance coverage for perjury and  good afternoon your honor and good and please the court my name is jonathan schwartz and i am counsel for apple e's scottsdale insurance company colombia has a duty to defend rockwell in prarie for two main reasons st the language of guzman's personal injury complaint seeks to hold rockwell and very liable for the negligent conduct of some contractors at the work site and even more specifically for unnamed complaint clearly established the possibility that rockwell and perry may be liable for the misconduct of th at the work site because th as this conduct may have been the real cause of guzman's injuries the result inferences so any vague references have to favor additional insured there is also ample case law that direct negligence allegations against an additional insured do not absolve the insurer of the the critical allegation here is that rockwell and perry failed to supervise or monitor subcontractors and the more and more important all given is that those sub contractors were then allowed to engage in the un say practice of not fan is necessarily triggered there is also as your honor pointed out no need for the complaint to spell out the negligence of the employer with a claim and has no incentive to sue anyway anything at it is enough and that we would be cited in our brief to court construction and weinerman construction both of which fully support that proposition therefore it does not matter here whether th is named as a defendant council argued that this is the policy that the interpretation that scottsdale in judge we have afforded the situation and not what was contracted for i would surmise that instead of the policy what was contracted for can be read through the language of the policy as sold so the question what are you don't excuse me the question your opponent asks though is you know what words in the english language would be enough to show that this situation where an employee of a subcontractor is injured on a work site what excludes or what could exclude that sort of situation from coverage and as as an additional insured reading this so broadly as to mean that there just is always coverage because these scenarios are so common i think that councils question is is an apt because while it's possible for his carrier to come up with a policy language that would potentially exclude a scenario which is that what we do know is that in this particular scenario that there are allegations that sub contractors a perry are responsible allowed for an unsafe practice of not covering or guarding unmarked openings on the floor and we also know that insured was working in a completely different area of the site and its employee happens to wander over and has nothing to do with his work then i think there's a very good argument that that cover that there's no coverage even  for for that type of elegy for that type of scenario but where the employee is injured in the exact error of the work site where his employer and colin plays are working i don't see why it's one i don't see why the insurer should be griping about it being unfair that they should have to cover such a scenario where they sold a blanket endorsement that allows for coverage for additional insured as long as it's possible if they wanted to limit it they can do so they can also exclude things but based on the policy language that was sold they gargan for this type of coverage working for the name insured who was working for the additional short of the site i believe that's a reasonable line of demarcation so with that said i've got still insurance would contend that judge lee grants judgement in favor of scottsdale should be affirm additional insured coverage for the sole negligence of perry or rockwell here at some point you're out of the drafter of the policy has to put the pen down not every scenario can be drafted out into huge policy when that clear language is applied to these facts and the underlying complaint there are simply no allegations with any meaningful connection to th other than the fact that p t h was the employer of the injured party  then that avoids the intent of these parties in coming to this policy language and it totally swallows that limitation in the policy and that's the point to drive home here and it's addressed by an illinois court the only a pellate court in national fire insurance a part of the walsh construction company and that there's got to be something more than just a vague allegation that a sub contractor was present on the site or that a sub contractor employed the eventually injured party to trigger coverage under these types of policies if more is not required then there will always be coverage required under these policies and that's clearly not the intent of the parties and clearly in  opposition to what those the straightforward policy language states and that note your honour's columbia would ask that the decision by judge we the district court be reversed thank you very time all right will thank you thanks as well mr schwartz the court will take this case under advisement and we will be