advertising liability arising out of malicious prosecution however regions policy also contains an exclusion that states that the insurance does not apply to parson on advertising injury whether the underlying wrongful use of civil proceedings claims as alleged falls within this knowing violation of rights of another exclusion  wising insurance coverage analysis is limited to the four corners of the complaint and the four corners of the insurance policy if you look at the so basically the court was saying that the coverage and the exclusion was a loser a because in the court's opinion as stated in the brief knowledge that there can be coverage that the act does provide coverage for gross negligence the exclusion is intentional  complaint to try to make it come with the intentional act exclusion and that is what the court will live upon and that is incorrect because the parties could allege that sometime in the future the complaint can be amended for example in this case to allege negligence may have included both intentional and negligent that's simply not the case in this situation they also allege that  had when you question to mr saltzman and that is did not exclusively and there's a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric in there and hyped up language but when you sift through it it does mention conduct which is less than intentional gross negligence negligence and it's a campbell judge b this could you point me to specific allegations in specific paragraphs that are fairly read as saying that gross negligence suffices for what's being argued here those paragraphs refer to the fact that it was not what they did was something that a reasonable person could not have done in other words they didn't act reasonably and that and that the actors could not have had a reasonable basis to believe that they could bring the claims that they brought and judge it's not just me who reads it that way i would say that if you look at  gist of the claim as one being based on gross negligence counsel on looking at the complaint the complaint in the beginning of joint appendix two has only one hundred and nine dollars paragraphs and paragraphs one hundred and eight dollars just says consequently contractual i pointing to knowing there was no reasonable basis to the claim being advanced i don't understand how how saying knowing and then saying no reasonable basis makes it a negligence rather than a knowing the way i read that paragraph is that it leaves open the possibility that the claim could be based on something less than intent sure there's a lot of you know intent to harm intent to do this in intent to do that but when you get down to it they're  three primarily for the improper purpose of attempting to secure contractual rights indeed no reasonable person could have believed but that's what you're leaning on your belief we're leaning on the improper purpose and then no reasonable person could i'm not saying that they didn't allege that it was that was it intentional conduct was involved i'm saying that they alleged both and the question is does it or are there allegations that potentially bring this within coverage ok so i think you have to take a said i'm not saying that they didn't use language in there that triggers intent i'm saying that they also use language that triggers something less than ten and the question is whether or not there's a potential claim cup attentional covered claim that's been asserted here  which is anyone that can play well i mean i do work negligence does not appear judge but the fact that they're talking about lacking a reasonable basis to me is negligence and i said like i said it's not just me it's judge male and a signal as well that's the same way that they read the complaint and this court in the frogs which case by the way judge in a case like this where you're talking about something yet that's really we're overcomplicating  because this in the frogs which case on page seven hundred and forty six to this court explained that there's a reason why the court addresses not only the complaint as pled but the complaint as a as could be amended and it doesn't as mr saltsman say applies to all types of insurance claims it applies to those types of claims that are based on tour were state of mind doesn't matter and  defamation for example are torts like that where you can have liability based on negligent conduct or intentional conduct and everyone knows how easy it is in the federal court to amend a complaint twelve years later even after a trial of torts where state of mind doesn't matter and i have to draw it back to the fact that what we're talking about here is a coverage provision that says we're going to cover malicious prosecution we're going to cover defamation these are the torts we're going to cover under the you're not taking the position that any intent is required here i'm saying that when you know you're right it was not my position below it was the insurance company's position below that malicious prosecution was only an intentional tort i think that the way the pennsylvania statute is is drafted there is a possibility of liability for something less than a ten and that's why i bring it back to the two in the frocks which case and i'm not saying that every covered in every type of coverage dispute you have to look at whether or not the complaint can be amended i'm saying that in these types of cases where you have an express coverage provision where you have a tort that's an intentional expressively covered and that where there is could be a finding of liability on something less than intent were state of mind doesn't matter then the ability to to even if there wasn't a mention of negligence or something less than inten in the complaint then you have to look at whether it could be amended to include it and that's this court's holding in the in the frogger that this court's explanation in the frocks which case it at no two and the other thing is you know you're a vista rating coverage you prosecution cases always require an element of intent how can they say that and expressly cover it and then on the other hand try to use a general exclusion to carve it out this is the area where the insurance companies tr create these ambiguities they know what the problem is they fail to address it with specific language and then they reserve for themselves the possibility that they can take whatever position they want take  is what i'd be satisfied my if i had a wish list my wish list would be that the district court's decision would be affirmed if that decision was not affirmed and the court wanted to refer back down for an amendment clarification judge i did that's not my complaint based on the facts as they have played out in twelve years of discovery and a summary judgment motion and two underlying arbitrations yes there could be a claim for and that was affirmed by the pennsylvania supreme court and that that was why all of this was on hold because everybody thought that once the underlying arbitration played out the federal case would be gutted it ended up them are all for which i speak on two of them but keep in mind for malicious prosecution you only have to prevail on one of the claims asserted so if you assert seven claims against somebody and you only prevail on one that's not that is not part of the record in this case and is not part of the underlying complaint and your honor correctly pointed out we have to simply look at the allegations contained in the four pointers  particular coverage it was not a general solution to the complaint to the policy in general and that's one reason to keep that in mind because it's important that councils trying to