please aren't those correct quotations they appear identical to each other and yet at the top of the next page there is a discussion of quote style differences and they do not appear to match the language cited by zurich and by the tester district court i'm trying to figure out what's going on  there i'm glad you raised that point because i'm trying to figure out what's going on there as well it appears that in putting these solutions into very we repeated the same exclusion subtle difference that the reports try to explain is  one of the exclusions and aims language that allows for the exclusion of also includes common law claims of the same one exclusion does not the other one thus and that is the subtle difference which the thank you for pointing that out thank you as you're aware the art of finding a duty to defend is exceedingly lucky i'm not going to go into all of them all the th circuit or for that matter eleanor court records have gone into but the bottom line is if a there are just these couple of places to zero to zero in on i wonder if you could just review what you think takes his complaint beyond the exclusions i understand you to be saying it's the reference to the home telephone and that you think that the district court understanding about these calls for being annoying abusive or harassing shouldn't have been done according to you because it was a issue affecting boys seems awfully incidental to me and then there's that and or negligently and i never even know what and or means so that but the notion that there might be some negligence that could you just like bullet point review where you think this complaint survives this exclusion certainly and i agree with you by the way we have in the th circuit very nice decisions are about are in two different parts st you have allegations in the complaint that are when attempted to collect the dead through an admixture all telephone includes it should say included over fifty eight dollars phone calls to resell you the telephone ok that would be a problem and then it just sort of vaguely says an additional calls to her home phone in an attempt to collect a lo that she discharged in bankruptcy despite telling our current staff so paul you're putting a lot of weight on that little addition and additional calls to her home phone like one  what are we i'm thinking of the twamley if paul pleading standard to be honest i'm wondering if this is enough to get you over the line and we believe it is it was only two also i might have an issue but i don't know how presenting allegation so it's her home phone she's thought this isn't one that seems to me would be exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant like it was like how many calls there were a well that was the cell phone though she doesn't put a number on the home phone which is what you're relying on in heart i have and i would also point out that even those aren't necessarily  human intervention they're not predicting what what if you are what is let me think what is your best support for the idea of that she has to use you know these magic words harass abuse or annoying she certainly seems to allege conduct that hits that description she khosla she she calls the  unlawful and offensive she just scribe does the level of stress those calls caused including a miscarriage it seems a stretch to read it any other rather mean why would a bill collector call a person on a cell phone fifty eight turning missed i mean not to ask how is your day going and that would even the allegations of a reflective of a very ordinary business hours week and that we don't know whether they stopped calling her what she was asked she asked them to stop we don't know when that happened rightly this complaint is a mish much of conclusions and facts some or all of which may be covered depending upon how the case turns out the end of the trial that this case was settled so we don't know that  you know if there aren't enough allegations here all within the potential for bridge particularly on the privacy that a duty to ask you i guess the position that your opponent urges most strenuously is that there were within the allegations of the complaint i have to add editorially they're not many of them and why does that not in the four corners show that something that would trigger coverage was there well your honor for one thing the complaint to call yes they want time because it is more than one hundred and ten paragraphs later if she makes any mention of a home call so there is nothing in this complaint that since the all she talking about there are these sort of allegations i'm wondering if they feel if they are specific enough for pleading purposes that in auckland intentionally and or negligently injure by calling her cell that the fifty eight calls were made to her home on on cell up to her cell phone i'm stuck right in paragraph one hundred and forty one which is the prefatory language for that privacy plan she cell phone in her home were unfair debt collection practices under that so everything that she is alleging and also keep in mind that she has incorporated everything  the complaint into this camps so there is no allegation stand alone that doesn't come under the guise of a statutory  that's exactly what's happened here she used the word twice in her complaint when alan any allegations of reach of duty without allegations of what that duty might have been it is just  well we don't know how how many times she called off the home well we do know that she specified that they call the home the cell phone if the eight times we do know that she said that there were some c anything that player fits within g m sun where it is an unpleasant scenario usually when courts look at these actions they do consider as one factor of the number of calls and is seems to be what op was hanging their argument that yes there may be changes out there that say that you need more cause but that's not what the issue is here the district court said that the f t c p a prevents call from a debt collector causing the phone to ring repeatedly and continuously with the intent to win what abuse and harass and because beecroft pleaded for the calls to stop do we know that this simple request is enough as a matter of fact to show the intent to abuse harass and cetera annoy views or harass or do we need more factual investigation and one of those was specifically that a debt corrector the debt collector can't harass when it continues to call after being asked to stop that is one of just a few exceptions in there that sort of outside the t c p but that doesn't really matter here because the majority of the court support it was based on the f t c p s a and it is without question that looking at the complaint that intentional conduct was ubiquitous throughout the complaint that she asked them to stop and they didn't and that her injuries would not have are based strictly on legal theory may be but in the violation of law school which some courts have reached a similar can conclusion as the district court here in all one has to do is look at the complaint and actually read the allegations which obviously the court has done and one will say that the invasion of privacy count the common walkout is based so way on activities and actions that are alleged to violate consisting of water concededly very ambiguous and uncertain allegations in this complaint that it's long doesn't help it just makes it hard to read frankly you asked whether or not the order for them to violate the empties the there must be an intent to injure and that is a question of fact we should be resolved by the trier of fact thank you