because insurance policies do say employees when they want to and all it had to say was work performed by you or your employer off and so it is our thoughts of work performed on their behalf so they bring in an outside to do some repair on eight air conditioning h t a c unit that is there is and that is their responsibility and i don't think there's any question in this case but that the work that was being done at the time of the plaintiff's accident was being done on behalf of the lens crafters i think the the tricky issue in the case is whether or not it's a claim that arises out of the work that's being performed on behalf of  of the three of you and tell you that there isn't some there's a reason they want to hire a law to apply it's much more favorable to them much more restrictive it is almost a situation where you almost have to i'm not sure the doors completely closed even if you apply ohio if you really want i really want new york auto yes but all right here so you've got significant context the location of the subject matter obviously occurred in eleanor i and as i understand the case law the case law says that you don't have to give equal weight to all of these you can get a little more for some of the issues than others the fact that the subject matters here the fact that lens crafters here the effect that would feel this here the fact that the man lived here who died a well ultimately died and the fact that the accident occurred here i think that's a pretty significant issue that should be given a fairly significant way what about the argument that is named in emerson and adopt the basically by justice for him in his decision in emerson and i'm quoting from that if you apply the law on this site which is what you write you should do it creates the result that this insurance policy could be interpreted differently in different locations because you face the prospect of future litigation involving this particular emerson stands for the proposition of when you have multiple subsidiaries and you have multiple accidents sites and you've got a big policy like you have in this case the emerson court says handle it with missouri law because missouri is where the first name parent company is from and it sure is that there will be uniform application of the of the policy language that is correct and so in this case if you follow emerson and we and consistent if you start looking at other issues well who wrote what where and somebody wrote a letter and somebody made a phone call negotiating it now or i think we're getting into areas where we can create a lot of inconsistency in the law emerson lays down a nice simple pattern across the follow of you've got the parent company this is the lead company this is the company that's in charge it controls all these other companies let's set down a good simple precedent that is clear for everybody if we start looking at some of these and it may have been delivered to beth so there affidavit may be correct but the declaration page shouldn't be ignored that's where it says that it was sent to the parent company in new york and so i don't the answer to that these kinds of tracks is a novelty when you look restless it is there are thirty three subsidiaries to be considered here too and i don't care where their headquarters all are but again it's one policy with multiple name insured thirty three subsidiaries and we're all sitting here trying to figure out what's the sensible way to try to determine who's lost should apply if we decide off heigho i was going to determine the interpretation of this policy and on the same policy who's sued in some other state and has a headquarters in another state some of which i mean your so going back to emerson you want that and if you want that that's your determination but that in  you know us determining ok in this case that policy is read this way but in thirty three other cases it could be read completely differently and since ohio is the minority lot we know the likelihood for that is huge and that's not i don't think the because i know you've read all that i do and if you have any questions i have an answer in but i think otherwise i'm wasting your time i do just want to mention briefly on the waiver issue in this case liberty did get notice of the claim  argued this in paper looks like the first time we specifically mention the two year issue but we raised the waiver issue most definitely at the trial level and in our initial brief with regard to their sending the  diff agreement to defend letter in february of zero five so yeah but that's a separate issue from waiting two years to file the deck actions it's a separate issue but and if we disregard that  thank you very much thank you and that is you don't measure the the way from any time prior to the suit being filed the suit was filed i forget the exact timeline but i think eighteen months of those two precisely what my concern is insurance policy provisions are generally governed by the location of the subject matter the place of delivery of the contract the dhamma silencing insurer of the insurer the place of the last fact to give rise to now what if we discover that the issue involved implicates the possibility of either new york law illinois law or ohio law and we find that the ohio law under our view in illinois is really true conic where we have a policy generally speaking of interpret ing policies and if there is an issue that's troublesome we lean toward the insured rather than sure and here we have a case where we're now to his own negligence which is a good start public policy exactly all right but here's the point i'm trying to make judge important public policy is construed narrowly for the purpose of there's anything and his affidavit that they feel doesn't address certain facts that they may be interested in i think that really is just something that they're going to have to live with but i from my office in cincinnati ohio and later and mason all file including the policy issue a policy at issue in this case if you compare their testimony which is either about to the discussion with a more liberal interpretation of basically sweeping w does and i'm like ohio law but what they haven't done is focused on relevant cases from now we say that a case decided by a federal district judge the greater new york jail with virtually identical facts and which the court held that there was no coverage for them all because the accident that happened in the store and that case that they try to distinguish it but the fact remains that th sri lied on three previous new york appellate decisions which stand for the same proposition that with similarly worded indorsements the acts of has to happen in the store for them all to be covered so there's sort of been this law the controls however if you look at the factors ohio clearly has a more significant connection to this policy than gore because he decision makers and final word like counsel's reference to the greater new york case it's important to note in the greater new york case that case did not provide coverage similar to the coverage provided by liberty mutual in the greater new york case the coverage was limited to ownership and maintenance this is a much broader policy in the liberty mutual policy in the so there are two completely different cases also there's been a lot of discussion about new york law pine i want to make sure that  this court is clear it is our position that we believe that ohio comes last on the list of states that this court should consider applying law to if you look at the significant context that's the location of the subject matter in the place both the case was very well briefed that will be taken under the