wire for the talent technology insurance company the primary question this case is a very simple one did the subject accident occur on a portion of the side of the shopping mall leased to technologies insured  stakeouts that's the only proper question to ask because technology's policy states explicitly that the mall owners coverage does not apply to injury quote that is not sustained within that part of the premises  is very clear both in the circuit in the state courts that the interpretation of an insurance of insurance policy insurance provision is a question of law for the court question is i believe that the control in question is is this exclusion that has been added to this indorsement ambiguous or not we submit that it is unambiguous it states that that it does not apply that the coverage does not apply to injury that is not sustained within that part of the  whether the accident occurred or did not occur within the premises that were released to the named in short yes there are two lower court decisions that say otherwise but that does not preclude this court from briefcase from the court of appeals of new york that says just because courts may differ as to a question of the on the interpretation of insurance policy does not render the provision ambiguous it's still up to the reviewing court to determine that question so i would submit that given the there's certainly plenty of case law in new york which we cited in our in our brief that says that unambiguous provisions must be read the way that they're written and i simply you know there has been need of the district that is not sustained within that part of the premises was to name in short so that raised the question what what is the boundary of the least these premises and to answer that question the only proper documents look at is the lease and  lease could not be clearer that the that the sidewalk and the parking lot at issue are part of the common area section eight hundred and two of the lease explicitly explicitly states that the diagram to the premises least as as the boundary for coverage it necessarily requires the reader of the policy to go to the lease to see what is the boundary of the premises that are lease to the named insured so  actually current on the lease premises and addition looking to the lease itself under section eleven old two of the lease which discusses the tenants obligations it defines the sidewalk as within the lease premises restaurant's principal testified that the ditch paid for the cost of keeping the sidewalk free of snow and ice and for sweeping the sidewalk which would have had no such responsibility for the common  area so the evidence as a matter of law shows that the sidewalk was part of the my premises however even if not the district court decision was still correct technology limits its arguments to the exclusion premises and even if you take the argument that it was not technically within the demise premises that the evidence to stablish is enough that they're not able to show that exclusion technology is trying to do particularly where the issue of who's responsible for the sidewalk may be determinative in the underlying action unless the alleged the court has any further questions i would rely on my gre with respect with respect to the one the provisions that do they void any discussion of the facts of the diagram to the lease which clearly shows that the shaded area which is described to the police premises is only the building and section eight o two of the lease which defines common area to include quote parking areas the destin walks and curb cuts so the lease could not be any clearer that the lease premises  not include the parking areas or the sidewalk the fact that there that there might be in an obligation to maintain those areas would that that was done in practice does not resolve the coverage issue which is dictated by the terms of the exclusion so the lease is unambiguous in that respect i also want to point out that the district court found not only a duty to defend but a duty to indemnify so even if there were a technology to demonstrate it was present a plan to breach by the breach but as explained in detail in our reply brief kilis is wrong because thirty four dollars twenties prejudiced requirement which by the way is what is incorporated into the policy which is what york at the moment you agree with i agree with that percent and i think it's because you don't want made that argument this is a novel argument the pill is did not even make in the lower court so yes i agree your honor there is no case law on this particular is all i can say is and we cited a case the a california case it's either a treatise on the issue that medical expense coverage is a st party coverage is not a liability coverage so is not covered by thirty four