right he said he had nothing to do with it at all so why can't the insurer look at the statement by the insured that whatever happened here i wasn't responsible for oh it definitely should in making the coverage for me that's right and definitely should and that  didn't do it has anything to do with coverage or duty to defend because you look at it from standpoint of the insurance you can't just take somebody intended this remember in the break this case saying you'll always look a this discussion is but here's what happened as gray we got the allegations of the complaint and we had whatever information the insured gave after that you were asked in the letter if you have it when they deny coverage for or deny the duty to because you want to punitive damages and you have to happen catchable court to do that yes and you tended to say that what happened here was intentional whether mr harris really in this part of it or not comes down the line and we're up way up the line one duty to the fans duty defense kicks and when have been aliens it came down and now that you've got there's no fractional record you were asked to put in more factors union was asked to put more facts to ensure no other factual put before the insurer on the initial determination of the fence now someone's going to come in and said you know what mr caribbean says that he had nothing to do with any kind of an unintentional defamation because he wasn't involved and greg your argument would make all states liable for coverage defend should be fixed by the facts which the insurer learns from the complaint the insurer and other sources that's what that's what our scope is i see you great tells us we have to look at the complaint and what the insurer or has found out or the insurer gives you and paul and i have not heard from you other than theoretically that there's other possibilities they didn't have any further facts on the first the germination of whether to do to defend but remember great also directs the carrier to look at four times trying to prepare for this case because if you slide off and start talking about the judge was closer to that they tried to slide off and say well we're talking about slander therefore it's always intentional that's not true and the fork is there but there's a little element here because of the denial i wasn't there it wasn't intentional so how do you analyze that the question is now whether slander is intentional or not it's whether slander is an accidental after an accident the negligen case by two different things the focus is going to have with us again like this is my example what happens if this is produced by an organization a board of directors looks at this and said and a manager says i'm going to publish this this is what i want to do fact that the insurer had to look at but i would argue that under the current definition of this policy and it's different from the language of the great policy the occurrence language is something that's developed fifteen years after progress and the idea is that if you present situation where there is a great nation a gray area where you get to the point where you're going one hundred twenty miles an hour and becomes virtually certain you're going to get in an accident if you're speeding seventy five hundred sixty five is all that you intend to try to beat the light time i worked there every day and it was never intention intended it just was to go out none of us and send a disposable somebody we can surely raise that language even though we intensely decided we were going to publish this we never intended to publish it it was just an after it was an afterthought we got scared but it got out but we never intended is that enough to raise the possibility that the complaint might be a man will think so i think the fact that it's published means that you had an intent to publish you had a  the inch insured says i'm going to tell you right now this was never intended to be published i don't care what that complaint says antone i've got facts i've got witnesses it was never intended to be under that hypothetical and i don't think that the fact we have here i don't think  context if there was no intent to do that but i think nine times out of ten when i'm sure does something you just saw police know you have that intent friend but be sure hypothetically something could be sleepwalking and something could happen but suppose he publishes a publication but it's an intentional act ok he's following it up and the person who did that says you know stuff and we've got this new computer that darn thing was screwed up and we were in a hurry never did we intend and he brings in ten copies of drafts and the word going out in the insurance world nor the students in the difficult areas and and that we've got down to the real fine line here and the question is how we apply grey and how we look at what facts the insurer ha zero three five six seven two seven harker casualty insurance company vs powerplay products each site will have ten minutes on this case