how the lower work dismissed our claim on the basis that it believe that the tenant was a co insurance under the plaintiff's policy and that therefore since we sure can't sue it may damage the reputation of the building be injurious to the building and operation of their own and the last sentence as lessee will be responsible for the conduct of the persons residing with the visiting lessee now its our there when you when you take that language which says that the lessee will be responsible for injuries to the building will return the property the same condition as it was when weeks but the way your honor that i read these cases it's not sit and watch whether the lease mentions fighting or not it's whether or not looking at the four corners of the least there is in intention by the partners they have the hot tenant be responsible for damages caused by honor whether the lease says advice or shallow purchase liability insurance and are here what's important here is when you look at the four corners outlays that there is of things and we don't know because we haven't done any discovery we don't know what the defendant or what provisions the defendant made to protect itself against this particular exposure for example corporation businesses that rent property typically by what is called fire fire and legal liability insurance which is very common and print backs them against  liability for their damage to a building that they these are either lease or or rent i notice that in the cincinnati case which was decided by this court there's a renters insurance based on our experience contains two components just like our homeowners policies contain two components the first component is it provides property they had a lessee be responsible for damage to the building caused by his negligence considering the two provisions and the advice to obtain insurance to protect himself against that exposure against fire staff even though north star is a corporation we still i'm assuming you were not you personally but someone on your client's behalf drafted this particular lease and it's not it doesn't say you have to do this we have to look at the plain language of the lease before we start talking about negligence or otherwise and if there was no intent pursuant to this plain language rather is a corporation for the for the general public property insurance what is property insurance it's it's for a property including buildings so you know we're we're dealing with these that you're providing your tenants to maybe not understand the nuances that you're making a here today because it's not there clear in the least well off i know i don't i don't necessary we agree with that your honor because is a corporation it is this lease is executed by the controller of the corporation who assuming he has some knowledge we don't know what the breadth of their experience is with respect the controller his initials appear right under this insurance provision am i i know that the that the defendant discuss ed a lot of detail this advice worth versus sham purchase insurance law i think as they say this doesn't require the tenant to buy insurance the sponsibility for damages between two insurers and i think that's what this boils down to basically the course if they can and some are gauge one of the underlying principles is that the party that is responsible cases do you see both language that says the tenant will be responsible for injury to the property am to this discussion a discussion regarding  you should obtain insurance to protect yourself against that exposure and so as i said i think that if you really have to ignore those provisions why why shouldn't the northstar first off but then other people understand things better get insurance well what i would point the court to is the one history of these cases that actually beg back to the andersen decision decided earlier by this court you look historically for a specific statements regarding fire insurance so that people understand what is being talked about here  i believe the landlord showed that it knew how to properly protect itself for claims regarding fire but when you look at the provision of the justice hutchinson asked mr tuffy about that insurance provision clearly shows that they know how to protect themself against claims of fire well if you look then look at the language contained in that insurance provision and compare it to the earlier insurance provision that says each resident is it five to maintain in wiring advice to maintain not because the landlord's going to look to them in the event they need to because of fire to pay for that damage they come right out of the box and they say buy renters is always historically in these in the more history of these cases big carved out separately and explicitly in the court saying hey if you want to protect against her being which you mentioned fired three cars it's so extensive it you might potentially be responsible for our significant they're not the normal thing that you would expect to be responsible for work for the common sense reason then why have fifty people buy insurance to cover something that one person can provision you got to go to first have clean hands when you come to the table the insurance get the insurance carrier and it's insured lexington insurance through the nasca and they could come into this with clean hands b express me stating what it is that they're asking this court to find they did they got too cute by half quite frankly and if the court should reward them for being cute expressed this that the courts have said this couldn't have been more strong in his opinion where his dissent index where he just said boom with the majority deciding here makes everybody a co insurance unless there is an express you know description policy language or the lease language and stuff still does not say that the resident shall purchase insurance for the protection of the landlord it does say that the landlord shall not be liable for even its own negligence if it years of case law and certainty that both landlords and tenants have known since dix that hey if you want to carve out an exception where you want to be different from everybody else and you make your tenants responsible decision the reversal of this decision changes twenty our twenty years or twenty five years because the cases instruct that all these cases are to be looked upon on their  that in the insurance provision why wouldn't the policy simply say that we have bodies that the renter maintain insurance on our household  we have to sophisticated partners that are barking they are executing a contract and they're free to contract for anything that they want this isn't a public policy issue this is simply interpretation of only looking at the four corners of the lease these speed full of greed these two commercial entities agreed that number one the lessee was going to be responsible for damage and number two we advise you that you should obtain insurance to protect yourself and in the event that type of damage you know somebody does graffiti and see if the kid could be on the outside of the building but if you know it doesn't destroy the building fire is much bigger and for whatever reason the courts you know no i have chosen to single man out in i don't think that there can be a number of causes so i don't think that fire is significant and i frankly i don't see that fire reviewing the prior cases is they have significant fire as opposed to some other negligent act letting your bath tub overflow all i am and damaging other humans is just a number of things that that that that provides that you're negligent you're responsible doesn't make any difference what the damage whether it's by fire or otherwise and we evaluate you came insurance to protect yourself i think