not for property damage per se but those damages are because of result result of and are a consequence of the destruction of some type of evidence and the loss of use of that and the either support or defend a lawsuit your argument is that the tangible automobile you the client lost use of and therefore the loss of the use forty of the opinion appellate use that such a negligence cause of action is a form of property covered by o'hare's policy we reject that notion and isn't that the argument they made because they had the care and custody exclusion and had and were in a position where they basically had to allege that there was the loss of the cause of action was ten shabelle property i think that's probably right here on end here we're not we're insurance coverage its customers auto work or covered off and in the garage coverage it's tangible prop and here the tangible loss in essex was alleged to be the loss of the cause of action to get around the care and custody exclusion back is not being alleged here what's left here is that the automobile itself was but the use of it was lost and moving on to what the damages would be for that loss that loss would be the loss of use of it as borne out in the language of the policy these are damages or  once you have profit on the damage any any damages or consequential damages that flow from that property which is covered under the policy should be should be covered and the insurer should provide a defense and and indemnity and i think liability insurance law once there is damage to our property the victim can recover the non property including business losses resulting from that damage and not just to demean usually in the value of the pro and even the exclusion under our five hundred there's a carrot custody throws which back up under the garage coverage which has that exclusion it's also there's also coverage for all hazard which requires care custody and control but isn't it really the case that the garage goes on to say it does not apply to a covered auto destroyed or damaged by your employer acting without the knowledge of your partners or executive officers and there's no allegation in the underlying complaint that any  following in time essex has a similarity fit essex in the sense that the court in keeley and in essex never really had the occasion to consider whether damages sought in a spoil the asian claim are the result of damages to tangible property and whether the problem i'm having with with your argument in your brief is not that a disagreement about whether essex is good law or not it's that essex doesn't appear to have reached the issue for which you are citing it now in other words they've never reached the issue of whether damage is to tangible property can as its impact in consequential damages rewarded or compensate for the loss of an intangible property which is a cause of action because neither past six nor for that matter keeley had a situation where the claim being sought was that the boss was to actual tangible property i eat an automobile and the consequential damages for him from that loss happened to be the damage to an underlying cause of action your honor i would point to essex and i believe that essex the state actually owned the bronco the car that was destroyed c b ownership aside because i really think that i think that's a completely different issue but what they did was they filed suit for the us or for the damage to the car claims they made a claim for the car but they also made a claim separate claim for the diminishment value of their products liability claims on lost as an alternative or loss was the loss of the cause of action and that was an attempt to avoid or get around the fact that the care custody and control exclusion would have otherwise by their entire clay if don't disagree with that but here you have two possible exclusions and the garage exclusion is similar to the one in essex because if you claim care custody and control your out but the other exclusion is there are greater coverage unless there is loss to tangible physical property is it can't be argued that the destruction of the automobile doesn't constitute a loss of the use of the automobile really points out what you and i have been discussing the comac way because there the court concluded that the underlying plaintiff's loss of the use of a right wheel assembly for constituted a loss of the use of a component of a customer's vehicle under the policy and that's the same type of a situation we have here we have a car that they've lost the use of but they measure of damages for that use was the loss of the use of its physical properties for use in proving an underlying  must own the property that is physically injured yes  i mean doesn't it really just say that the owner of the vehicle has to bring the suit requires is lost to a covered vehicle which this clearly was hidden in coverage car five hundred it requires it says requiring the last meeting direct the next and all physical laws are damage and if you can't get coverage for somebody else's property under your proposal and it's got to be your property me to my neighbor's car destroyed cite it was property damage all of the claim that we have a lot of cases in illinois that half the whole thing that the courts really don't consider whether the property but the party asserting a claim against the insured on the property of issue when considering whether the policy comes from this case for example elko industries where where there was a finding that the manufacturer was attempting to recover costs it incurred in repairing engines in a recall program after the suppliers product failed and they said they could recover part of the repair cost even though the manufacturer did not own the products that had been recall because they had already been s in other words you have a situation where the ownership of the covered property isn't is found not to be decisive in any way but i haven't seen a case and i don't know what the policy language was in that case i'm not exactly sure what what they said but you know i'm looking at the language of our policy to look at the essex case which is directly on point and it says that you know a civically reference that and then right after that said there is no coverage and like i said in that case the state even own the car was even making a claim in our case there they don't so even when there was a potential business of you know if you get into that was house law but our claim that the coverage parts require intentional actions is not based on susan g for three hundred if you look at exclusive if you look at the that there's no duty to defend here any and we look at the allegations of the complaint and we don't really know for demi purposes for example what happens until you read it but the only reason it came up was because they