intermediate appellate court authority as guidance but not binding and we make our own judgment about whether we think the california supreme court would so rule and that is correct correct statements and one thing to keep in mind  the effect of this means that if if we apply pressley it means that a general contractor doesn't need to via liability insurance the general has to do is require that his  buy liability insurance for their own farrier just to perform competently and they get a free endorsement that applies to the general for the subs failure and then the general has what amounts to a general liability insurance for free i don't see how any look at think that they'd be entitled to a put it looks like that's the practical effect mag over just answer your question your hon mr contractor will give you this bill complete the fence all these uncovered things that we have no duty is  a free ride and it's contrary to what had been and what has been perceived as california law basically after crossly there is a direct unqualified conflict in the case law governing how you interpret these additional ensur now written would you lose absolutely if it were california ok that's that's what i want to and what i'm what i'm indicating of the court when i indicated a moment ago that i totally disagree with mr glascock just was asian is that what we have is we have the party decision the party is very good decisions very clear is as i believe as joe klein called pointed out indicating that the quote that the additional additional insured coverage is intended by the insurance industry to cover a vicarious liability that an additional insured ma those cases that the additional insurer indorsement does not give the general contractor a free ride we have presently i acknowledge pressley exist pressley however is one of a number of cases deciding to dish an insure california has indicated in the powering case just before presley as well as just recently in the rosen case another case we brought to the court's attention is public policy is not a basis for writing terms into or out of an insurance policy language of the policy controls what we're talking about here in terms of the additional insurer indorsement is a particular unique limited capacity that the general contractor hands by virtue of that  to the boss argument above this is a different type of policy in a different type of situation and i'd like to focus on buses for a moment and i like to focus on the additional insured losses but in order to do that i've got to move back a few years to particular capacity what has happened in the industry and what's happened with these additional insured indorsements the general contractor is insured in the limited capacity for vicarious liability arising out of the door for  at that point the carrier for the c g all clear at that point has no obligation to pick up the defense of the malpractise case the insured is only insured in a limited capacity for the dance that are covered by that or had its carrier issue that additional insurers dorson it would not only have to pick up the slip and fall they much for which it was responsible and for which is policy would cover it all also have to cover the the malpractise going i think your argument is that actually holmes is really stupid question your honor if it's one of those situations that the california courts i don't have the case in front of me and i don't have a case in front of me california does not believe in the theory as some states do that if you've got one passenger the the bigger one of the biggest elements of indicating that presently would not be adopted is presently reaches that conclusion based on a reading of public policy ignoring the language of the endorsement and ignoring the of the named insurance a contract so that in other words we're dealing with two different kinds of policy in the bus we're dealing with somebody who has a general policy and they are uninsured under that policy when we're dealing with somebody who claims rights as an additional insured under an additional insured indorsement they have a very narrow group of rights and the only right they have is that those rights that arise out of that endorsement we've pointed are out of our brief that under afternoon if it please the boss and for him his curia professional association specialty contractors it's interesting at least from my perspective if there is a constant reference to public policy i think  recent review article from july two thousand and three which i'd be happy to let the court have michael on the back i think i understand at least in general terms a likely impact on your class let me ask a different question now and that is are there other cases articulate the circumstances we would have to actually to our own insurer and try to stop them from paying for the complete defense of the developer because it's harm in by increasing the if you have any other ideas some of these issues that have come up namely collateral estoppel and how precisely we can say that the california supreme court would not never the focus of a little as it is i recall the the greater breast of the duty to defend this compared with the duty to indemnify is to cover claims that are groundless false or fraudulent and to cover claims that may be within the coverage as well as those that are within the coverage at however i was interested in the hypothetical case about the dentist take your adversary gaev and i was thinking well i know something about legal about medical malpractise defense that it's very expensive minutes typically handled by different lawford's from the ones that do slip and fall the fence and talk about him in a sense here that's that's what we're really talking about right now isn't it is it true that the slip and fall carrier the premises liability carrier would not be tagged premises carrier that covered for slippery falls would have to provide medical malpractise defense i'm not saying that what i why not and if not how can you distinguish that from the subcarrier i suppose a plumbing sub having to provide a defense for something totally unrelated to plumbing because that's what the agreed to do in the additional insured indorsement to buy the california supreme court one in bus one in aerojet aerojet there were forty years of coverage one insurer one year was expected to spend the entire kate plus twenty seven claims only one was covered defend the entire case american state once a contractor found the entire case harvey was a case where they said ok we only have to suspend cases that incepted after we come on the rest you know you defend all the cases all the way back to every one and all those remedies are left to the insurance companies they provide an immediate and full the fans and then the end of the case they can sue their own insured for any defense fees incurred in non potentially covered  alternatively they can sue the other insurance companies on the rest for contributions but that's the burden they want to force on their insurer at the beginning of the case when there is a life and death decisions when both sides are coming down in expensive and they all agreed what was going to happen the hills on the houses on top of the hill were going to collapse a sixty million gallon reservoir only controlled by the city of i sounds like a terrible case now on the back of this case but what happened in that case though is good experts were hired yeah i know i was fully evacuated from their homes and  ok i understand can i ask a different question which is to say how does contribution work as among the other insurance from what gives one insurance companies paid for the entire defense under pressure homes what legal obligation is there pull for a minute i thinking of another aspect of paying for the defense where you have multiple insurers on the hook for i think the consequence of your argument is multiple insurers are on the hook for the general sort insurer plus all the subsidies for lawyers had when i used to do that sort of defense we'd have big fights with each other about who is going to control what and i'm trying to think how would you resolve who gets to control the defense usually the duty to defend is linked with the authority to control the defense and that's a lot of the reason why insurance companies sell as part of their defend in such a way so that every everything gets blamed but the windows what i'm saying is they can control the entire tapes they'll be totally indifferent not only will they blame everything on something other than the