our position before we even know whether she has been filed against you which is exactly contrary to illinois law the law says a duty to defend is determined where we have a complaint that's read i know what this policy with this letter says this letter is the st legal issue that has to be addressed here in the letter says oh we're not going to defend you know we know how we don't care what suit is filed against you that if you get past them then you have to get to what the actual policy provides and unfortunately for markel in this case whether it was underwriting her or whether it was an attempt at overkill or something markel put two different exclusions in its policy covering the exact same subject matter this is not like the general st the specific cases that they provision of their grief here ah but that's a lot too late the problem mystically you have to get pretty exclusions covering the exact same subject matter of the law says you have to harmonize them you have to read them together in a way such a brief you see the difference between those kinds of construction and in the east room explosions which deal with the sac same subject matter and the exact same question policy it's not like in one case it was an uninsured motorist provision  do the order of operations if we focus on one question without going through the proper steps we don't reach the proper result on the st thing we have to do is it says we're not going to cover you no matter what even no there is no complaint tendered for defense even though it says we don't know of any complaints and the clear in that it continues to use these exclusions for coverage i don't think anybody in the modern age anticipates all the things that can happen with a general liability policy strength when you're buying liability insurance kind of the same goes for you when you buy your or your auto insurance or your homeowner's insurance it's it's it's not something that you have other states call it a contract could be huge in illinois has not done that yet in the there's nobody asked for coverage for the person who actually committed the acts that the girl's pledge to a committed ok i just am nobody's asking for cover for him he's in jail and sycamores far as i know the only the only if you read the way we're kill argues that as if this were the only exclusion in the policy but right next door to the next page of the policy says it is agreed that this policy does not provide coverage for claims for suit seeking damages whatever the facts may be developed in the underlying cases done that you're not going to have another argument to be made by the insurance company because i don't know that because i don't know what the underlying facts are going to be i'm only dealing with the complaints and we're  specifically energy and says that it would be necessary for joseph paying to have the opportunity to accuse his children for them to have been in his care custody or control control over it take the fortress of canon to for example touch them again appropriately but beyond that even if these children were in his care custody or control it doesn't necessarily follow that they couldn't also it's written for the risks involved with the recreational physical or educational care and development of children including organizations like the youth and recreation facilities and gymnastics clubs and types of claim views exclusion and that's where the argument goes wrong it's it's black letter law black letter insurance coverage for what it an exception to the exclusion does not create coverage  to the extent it's otherwise provided a good policy which is what it says the facts of this case i'd like to take a brief moment to also address the other sort of extra contractual argument that urgent makes which is it's public policy  might want to start off with a public policy argument that let me let me give you but let me address one thing that the council talked about the exception to the exclusion situation counsels right terms of a general principle was that an exception to exclusion doesn't create a current richard preserves w whatsoever and that's why he says well if he says that it gets there some coverage that's provided except for the actual a threat of sexual abuse or exception to the exclusion to apply to he says he's read out of the policy and that's where he goes he goes straight to the policy cannot coast one general one specific but that does not make it general or specific they both have to be going together and i've said all right so say it again but look the other thing i want to finish up with is it and that's just a general rule of contract law that has nothing to do with insurance or goldstein cases just basic hornbook contract law so best that's where the court i