south county involving an injured worker by the name of michael hansen i had a later point his wife was a was included for a loss of consortium an amended complaint that was filed out he was an employee which had been hired by only cement company the owner of the premises involved i have to do some work on the premises some plumbing work that was going to be done on there were various agreements that were were set forth between them and as part because he was employed by perino forming had it workers compensation action which was also pending at the time the original complaint and in fact none of the many complaints included any allegations he felt compelled now to make the decision he made in his reading of the united contractors based upon the fact there was no actually a naming  that shows the negligence of perino and he can't mr guest answered your question by saying the real operative difference in determining coverage is whether or not some contractor is name opinion a little stronger than you not contractors to a phony trial court and that is it's really interesting to hear from the standpoint of he's correct to different law firms file different versions of the complaint at different times if you look at the original complain now in the trial court i did argue that the amended complaints were transparent absolutely not the coverage and they were now the real thing here to take away from just if you're going to honor and the court should really look to that circumstances to look at the complaint here or there was nothing in this is what shouldn't be lost in this argument there is nothing stopping answer from pleading that's it he was injured by an active were you know that's not what he's done what he's done is alleged that he was injured by an act that was caused by only saying that there's just nothing in the complaint that we leave this work to find that there are vicarious liability which is what i think everyone in this room was you wouldn't expect somebody in a soul to pleadings the self defense argument because that doesn't help their case in the hanssen case that's why the wilson case is the perfect one for this one counsel saying he could have put that in the complaint and then more than additional ensure on net that's not realistic it's not going to happen they need they don't name the pardons in those particular cases now if if i can you know this case one that there were two contractors who had been independent liability as opposed to the misstatement afford that is specifically in our complaint none of that language was in the other and that was important because that allow the decision in the united contractors is that we looked at the facts of that case and two things were there one there was absolutely nothing to connect the name liability of those other contractors involved in here because it was never named and so we don't even know who they're talking about up as opposed to the restatement for the aspect here and he was files the wrong after the others there must have been a pleading in the car again i don't know the underlying of how long that was there i can only stay here that for the first few months of this before the third party from point was filed out of the record will show that this case with room i am someone took a change from a judge in this case to another judge i had pardons and it had new attorney swing involved in the case and then all i can say is that we filed our third party action before there was any declaratory judgment action prepared five or asked to piece and i guess otherwise it's on me for waiting for a couple of months that before that happened with all the things that were happening here they need and i appreciate all of you the opportunity to make the argument after my client thank you very much