did in particular i appreciate the discourse consideration of the matter as does it mike why we are here today following elevator corporation i want to point out that the judgment in favor of schindler elevator it was brought despite the fact that we had asked for no affirmative relief declaration of whether there is or is not coverage under the policy the insured today is identified and named as a party in interest here the complain surgery policy for claims which are made by deneen the underlying point of against core in the underlying  there is no coverage it would go peer based upon our allegation here the schindler's interest would be more aligned with those of or and wanting to see that that requires that schindler purchase additional insurance a liability insurance and have co it is by way of background whether it is necessary or not i do not know because of the judgment that was entered in favor of schindler and what is the significance there is that a determination that this the contract did not require and arising out of endorsement if as we submit the endorsements that were purchased the c g twenty twenty six indorsements that all of the zurich endorsements and as the court is well aware we suck them forth they possibility for coverage is then compared to back to the language of the endorsement and therefore is it possible that the injuries for which the name is seeking coverage from or were caused in whole or in part by his work for his employer schindler and that's just looking at it from the perspective of the underlying complaint the underlying complaint alleges that at the time of the accident the name was working good for schindler therefore h activities arose out of him in the course of his employment by schindler in the dish i'm the third party complaint that was filed by state farm against schindler contains specific allegations of negligence against when we get back to where the dispute started the defense of core was saved tender by courts representative and knew that there is nothing in the underlying complaint that would establish that the liability number schindler were guilty of negligence that by operation the flaw schindler's negligence would in some respects responsible down to the employer so here we have abt the top state farm is the owner owners are very seldom found liable in cases of this if sort of construction negligence cases then you have the general contractor which is my client or then you have the subject contractor which is a schindler who also happens to be the employer so these generally go down to the employer so the owners contract with core says decor will include the owner as an additional insured and have the obligation and duty to defend it as the owner of state farm so that is what corps is doing pursuant to corps policy and pursuing pursuant to a corps a contract with state far then we get to the next year and have that two year shindler says to four all right in exchange for being allowed to do the work on this job we agreed to include you as an i employee ease arising out of the net as you can see in the endorsement they itself in the performance of ongoing operations for the additional short of then out that the injury sustained by didn't mean it was caused in whole or in part by any act or omission on the part of his employer schundler we believe that that's what the facts it will clearly show but we don't yet there on the duty to defend duty to defend says hape by virtue of public policy every insurance defending any complaint with allegations that are liberally construed in favor of the insured if the facts allege fall within or portentious only within the policies coverage defend the insured this is true even if the allegations are grown was false fraudulent and even if only one of several theories of recovery alleged in the complaint falls within the potential coverage insurance which would have provided eight defense to core based upon the allegations of like as i indicated previously the arguments that have been made and that were accepted by the trial court i believe although we don't have the record of the trial court the thinking the arguments that vicariously to cough and we point out in the both our avalon's brief and our reply brief the consistent cases that have been decided negligence on the part of the named insured and no direct nexus or allegations that any negligence on the part of the name  ensure would be vicariously imputed to the additional insurer and those were clear caught by carious liability endorsement which said that there is coverage they all of this at that point because i represent a lot of insurance carriers on the other side of the equation in other words those who write by carriers are imputed liability and boresome i said well this should be they end up and it wasn't the end of it because when peak an insurance sought declaratory judgment based upon the karni case the first district to not shit up one and said look we don't have to have these specific allegations anymore previously we went north way back and forth back and four on wrong in the air or young the gives it decision foot we have to live with whatever wall that is there is in the sand tax and in lexington the first district sad that we are even though even though the underlying complaint doesn't say that to the named insured was negligent why if there are the employer and there's a liability suit  here the employer is the one that is in control of the employee work therefore we're going to say that the employee you're based upon the standard of possibility there's a possibility that the employer is negligent you're serving and exclusion to establish the exclusion and therefore it is not as if it is written into the ensuring agreement which is what we have a here so the hastings decision perms on th please the court justices to counsel that afternoon so what's interesting about plaintiffs argument is that much of the argument is based upon policy language that's not actually in the and arguments regarding the concert underlying construction contract and what it supposedly should have called for according to plan of the council rather than what's actually in the policy indorsement i found it extraordinary in reading pla role to determine the application of the policy that's actually before it not some policy that kind of sites off of a website so i don't understand exactly where it is going with that there are a couple things i would like to address  determined that robert wouldn't apply everybody's out of the case they did make a determination as to the underlying contract and whether breach of contract actually exists whether as justice turner brought up there could be the basis for a third party complaint a contribution is not before this court i will say that actually respectfully to counter steve counsel here there has been a third party complaint filed by court there was one filed by state farm it was not one of these that has been noticed to me that was filed by raised until this appellate court level as are several of the issues raised by his counsel i also don't know why we keep coming back this issue of a supposed conflict what my relationship is with my clients is m address that is part of the policy that never been an allegation it's not our policy for the first time on appeal the issue is raised well we didn't see it there but we can't eat shouldn't be in or stores and pay us well the reason i ask strong suit folks are much more familiar with the high but it seems to me that that's the factual context sexually in this case and that if we i think that texas to think about the reasons they set forth in our region well i've got your brief in front of me and i can see that maybe it's my own limitations possible but i have trouble understanding the distinction that you're trying to draw also here your chance to  centex the court specifically relied upon the fact that there were allegations regarding who was a well a felon and it was the employer who erected the wall so while yes the the complain and against the general contractor was silent as to the their party defendants neighbor didn't those factual allegations gave a basis to reach a conclusion that the employer may have been involved it wasn't just a possible i think that is accurate how explain it not possible is a pretty high standard i don't think centex is saying that the mere silence means if you're an employer on  construction site you are always obligated to accept the tender i think that's that's taking centex to centex said yes the mere fact of their not being a specific allegation against the employer in the complain because obviously the the plaintiff wouldn't bring that allegation or third party point of wouldn't bring an allegation because it doesn't serve their interests if it's a worker's compensation related case but are the facts as alleged in the complaint such that they raise a reasonable basis to believe the possibility that the employer may be at fault and here you have somebody who's innocently pushing piece of equipment and the allegations in the complaint are that core failed to control the site allow somebody to run around on the site who ran into the plaintiff and caused his injury there's no allegation that schiller was doing something that allowed for this accident to happen or was negligent in some way but but that's being im which one could have a basis beyond just utter speculation to say because otherwise little you're saying if the employees on the site it's their employee it's always the duty to defend and i don't think centex goes that far i don't think  the possible result must be understood as a possible result that's pretty sure the right foot it is and yet i think it has to be read in the context of the further evaluation of that by the court incentive because i think that has broader if we're saying an employer cannot even defend a tender if they happen to be on the site if for instance the complaint alleges that corps had failed to supervise schindler's employees failed to supervise mr dineen two two or fail to instruct him in safe measures which wouldn't directly implicates gender but would suggest that something was done by him to contribute to his negligence or by schindler to contribute to what happened without actually stating i think so in terms of of what has been alleged there is nothing alleged in the complaint that gives the quarter basis that to say there's a possibility that sion that contributed to what happened here this was this was another person who ran into the the planet and of us i mean sure you that's that's a difficult one i don't think so and i and i would say the reason for that and by the way we haven't gotten to the issue of the specific additional insured indorsement that limits liability to shim there's negligence which which council did reason why he's pleading the allegations by state farm are relative to vicarious liability for state farm state court construction is even part of that and as i indicated counsel mr miller's firm is actually counsel for both state farm and for court construction there is language that says that becomes self serving to rely upon that as a basis to find a duty to defend but there's no allegation in the third party compl state farm that would implicate anything that and it's all the allegations are all very one of the play there's nothing that specifically alleges a factual circumstance and what of what they talked about and centex where  action letter was superbly involved in this aspect of the work that led to the point this injury even if we're not going to specifically state shinde it was negligent and and so on or the circumstances of this case i don't think it would be appropriate helpful i think i when the allegations potentially could name the church not the employer well the fact that there i noticed doesn't create some additional duty the issue is whether once they're put on notice do they have an obligation to defend if in fact those factual circumstances arise that would trigger that you and i yes i i mean i want to illustrate to you get a new member of the court that's what i'm waiting through agree i think centex has to be read in its entirety just as that the contract and policy need to be read in their entirety but i but i understand your concerns just as have i i do think that if one considers that case in its entirety a because i think in reading it sent text is full context and there needs to be something more than just saying hey is it your employee because in every construction case the employer is always responsible for their actively engaged in operations at the site designated in the contract between the named insured and the additional inch of the council has suggested a couple of things that were raised for the first time on appeal that we didn't see this provision even though it was in the in  response to the tender and therefore you can't enforce it or it's in conflict with these other indorsements and there's nothing there's no case law that i've seen that says well you can read one endorsement and disregard the other door they're all part of the contract in this particular himself by the handle there just isn't in the traction here first and foremost we have the situation that this is not as we pointed out a the endorsement here instead of being caused in a whole or in part were vicarious liability endorsement then centex in the lexington it would control to create reasoning of the first of three in the hollow burden route case and sad that in considering whether or not coverage you give twitter you can look at the third party complaint and the first district in the sand tax and lexington picked up on that and i think in particularly in the lexington where they said well let's look at  contract and i believe it was mr justice's statement here and he who said look the contract here and we point this out in our submissions put safety on the job as the responsibility of the named insured employer chandler so if you look for wilson versus the  per pekin insurance if person is wilson at the third party complaint then you have a litany of the third party complaint o rules of this court and of the illinois supreme court that you up why that commonly understood meaning to what term and we don't find x and omissions and we define in  it again picking up on the discussion here the third party complaint such forth a litany of whole missions and we have the contract that ignores the g a o or what you're proposing ok they answer to that is the i don't think that it is material but we did not ignore it in our briefs because that would be here the contract that says that twenty c g endorsements are going to be purchased we are seeking coverage under those endorsements as an additional insurer the