according to them and virginia the issue is whether the fourth circuit was it was incorrect and they didn't apply it doesn't apply here because if you use pennsylvania the principle of the target insurance policy to look at it in the way account person would understand in terms of you probably construe terms defend but somehow on the basis of the same allegations there would be a duty to indemnify to censure judge or in fact ruled on this case on the basis of the broader standard there is no potential for coverage unless there is no duty to allegations of the complaint be read in their entirety and not so as to allow our focus to be to turn the meaning of what the facts are a simple isolated allegation should know isn't going to be enough to make an agent's case but in this case it goes beyond that will be on the fact of the allegations of should have known don't relate to the claims that determine whether there is coverage or not that may be a little puzzling but give me a moment to give the introduction this is not all is your question directly as with any insurance coverage case you have to a legally required to pay for cover property damage ok now this language has two components there's the legal liability compile it a mouse the insurer is legally required to pay and there's the property damage the property in which that must be caused by an accident and in this case there is absolutely no question that the property damage complained of in this complaint was not covered by the policy because it was not caused by complaint had to do with the allegation of whether melrose knew it was violating the law but going back to the policy language gave remember two separate requirements the legal liability requirement and the property damage  to determine whether there is a duty to defend under a policy that says we will not cover property damage that is not caused by accident when compared to a complaint this is absolutely the reset in these facts of sending these fact provisions you out of the first that have gotten the property argument right have thus correctly focused on whether the insurer intended to cause the damage and not on whether the insure to cause the damage as opposed to the intent to act as a sexually in your only consideration engine should recognize that pointed out when he said it's irrelevant whether they intended to violate the after nine and the allegations with regard to travel soon where i disagree with them with regard to the record now that whole discussion of the record beyond the four corners of the complaint you're right it doesn't really have anything to do with who's folding it was in response to melrose are you even you should look beyond the four corners of the understand that the legal analysis stops with the four corners of the complaint i'm including this as a demonstration just to demonstrate that there can change about what's beyond the record is correct but it doesn't weigh on the holding with regard to advertising injury or honors damage when there wasn't consent so intentional acts like building a levee dumping garbage removing trees building houses that they only cause damage when the alleged victim didn't