rule where an exception to a coverage exclusion is at issue in the case in that situation their products the court held that and ensure an offer is transit davenant's to address the exception to the exclusion our position on that is number one and we don't have we don't consider it necessary to reverse their prices i can tell you that in the twenty four twenty five years since it was decided i'm not aware of a single pennsylvania case that has adopted issue for a couple of reasons one of them is under the four corners rule the complaint allegations that normally control the duty to defend clearly foreclose and the issue of self defense because it was alleged that the assault was unprovoked and on justified it wasn't necessary for the players to hedge bracket this for second let's assume i know you have arguments to this policy doesn't affect cover self defense but let's assume we have unequivocal coverage of self defense no exception exclusion but in the body of what counts as occurrence if that's the case your position on four corners would render that coverage nugatory because any hornet is never going to plead that my attack was unjustified therefore defendant's response was justified or warranted right you can always plead in such a way that deprive your adversary of insurance companies defense so i don't know if there's ever a situation for your product exception this would seem to be it was issues it's not about exception and in this case it wouldn't apply because the allegation was you foreclose self defense issue because accident either on the theory that it was an instinctive reaction or that the whole situation was on the right if we were to follow those cases then it would be an accident and then it would be an occurrence and then it would be triggered now we would be affirming on the same what's the reason that should persuade us in these cases i think fundamentally i understand your argument but i believe that whether someone is acting in self defense or not when he is alleged to it that way on the other hand were never you intentionally employ physical force against someone else i find it very difficult to sexually consider that to view that as being an act of what do you make your products reliance on cases the deal is the that is what triggers the reaction of self defense why isn't that an accident from the perspective of the jury if that's if that's the way the both of those you know i think you have to look at the at the question is the original occurrence i understand you're going to be that there was no accident no occurrence and pointing to the district court's reasoning that there was not an occurrence but as as just noted we can with any grounds if we conclude that it is because it's just an accident when an insurer is attacked out of the bloom then why isn't it right that if there is an requires reading this in favor of the insurer she makes the point that there's an exception exclusion that strongly implies that self defense is covered so why shouldn't we read this whole thing is casting light not in any of the cases that i've seen held that the term is ambiguous but i'm asking if why shouldn't we be able to find it in big you in here because you concede this is a standard form contract because this particular complaint rules out before close that's a four corners point let's set aside the four corners court you don't get to self defense because of it's it's it's not  proper analysis of the insurance contract if you if there is no occurrence which the district court held as the end of the story in this case where the complaint forecloses any kind of stuff that's why they pleaded that why i can't tell you but the complaint forecloses that so policy if a complaint that just alleges that there was the use of force why then should we not construe the policy as covering self defense because the pens we of course would never  defendant's answer to the complaint of the character or judge and his testimonial affidavit which although procedurally appropriate for them to have submitted in response to a response or motion substan here then perhaps it would be appropriate for that issue to be raised complete could have pleaded i was in a bar and asked that it happened in things get out of here and i was particular lawsuit if you take parts of the policy of any insurance policy and put them together you can generally find something in there that's going to creating value in this case we have an unprovoked unjustified as the place it's number ten i'm saying pied dash one o four steps which judge president hell ninety intentional shooting in a restaurant was an occurrence underlying case and he did show a complaint now that case was decided on other grounds because there was an additional policy that said there's no  plan relies upon the ability of the underlying plaintiff counsel and if however they decide to plead it is we have no control over what's forever just like i occurrence under the idea of that being an actor because you can never accidentally defend yourself in self defense it's become you know lose you mary so it's not an accident it's not and i'm surprised the table i said you can never under the policy if you look at the exclusions and you have to get your used loses i understand that but if you look at the policy in the schools is how could you accidentally  could be understood to be to fit to be coverage for self defense why is it that we can we can use this exception to the exclusion to cast light on what an accident or w they push push it out of the way or need to swerve and that's causing some damage interest on the injury that is due to self defense that is in response to an accident why isn't that the way to read what is a homeowner's insurance policy that provides coverage only for accident my best guess is that no one in this room including myself never sat down and read their home their own homeowner's policy clearly a individual right mistress the heater or any other homeowner does not even understand what the coverage is for them because they're not there because the homeowner decided i need to have some protection there is a or because the bank decided they needed some protection on their mortgage so in order to protect their investment in the property they require the homeowner to buy the posse so a home owner doesn't even know what's in the policy he certainly therefore is not acting with an intent oh yeah if i do any other guys probably should but if i do b i don't have any courage it's not even among the two participants in the underlying case but in this particular case it was between two females there's a chance that was put forth was self defense not of the individual but of his whining that he got up to protect her from being assaulted by the underlying plaintiff mr anderson but none of this is in the complaint and it requires going well beyond just the only complaint and related to a whole minute accident but this is a stretch here to say that someone buys homeowner insurance thinking all that involvement in a bar fight is going to be covered we have to do a lot of stretching we've all seen them or had they wanted to we allude things such as personal injury completely they could have done some but they didn't name clued in the policy that exclu saying if you're acting in self defense and it doesn't say i think is self defense within the property your cover off of the property some therefore they had the ability to to exclude that completely had they intended to didn't file when given an opportunity by that court to present restitution and damages to wish to court credible gordie's to him but he didn't do that he he he took no action much whatever w his thirty day window and he says he took no action for many many months until he filed the underlying action in first in philadelphia court which was then set back to delaware county because he was in the wrong court and know was not it was not a felony it was a misdemeanor it was simple so as a misdemeanor which he received community service and i believe it was one year probation before we let you go what's your response to th seventeen of i'm not corners look at other i think the answer is anything else i believe other jurisdictions i do not believe i found one in pennsylvania no need to have covered it up and since it is what it is