virtually all of the case law on this subject the home i don't i still think that that is both contrary to the wall and when you look at it and court order is part of our the record on that a couple of concepts of the law which i will know too by your honour's the duty to defend and that is the only thing we're here we're not here to determine whether this was  is also very clear on the second point which is probably the best important crux issue of this case and then this if a duty to defend is only as to one of the theories or one of the allegations with the record we have this letter from pekin farmers insurance to mr miller in saying that they will and they agree and it meant that they have a duty to defend him and the allegations and all of the allegations in both of those complaints are part of this suit which will bring us to the suit will be defended discovery will take place as matter of fact rotters is taking place right now of the defense now we don't have to go to the next step this court does not have to go to the next up because i think under this year seventy percent will can insulation under the theory that if you have to defend one of the allegations you have to defend a law i think that answers the possess it and of course they have you have his affidavit in this record saying what he what he said that he didn't do it intentionally and then of course we have the admission in pekin insurance this letter is where the another form of consolidation that the down court recognized with where several cases involving an inquiry into the same fan in its general aspects those cases may be try to get their maintain their separate conduct we file a declaratory judgment action and then we receive an amended complaint that says well there's other allegations that we're going to bring forward such as negligence or something like that and then what counsel but here he's chosen he's going from engineering services which were not covered under the policy wasn't something that was going to last in the in the place the underlying tort plaintiff's case he would know exactly what that the contract between the parties were or the difference between the consolidated being tried the same time you've got these two actions based on the same kind of conduct and it's the who's your drawing that that's the difference in the two complaints but getting the idea of a consolidation it wasn't a consolidation and i mean the oceans of examples you're giving of cases were wilson would not apply or things were the underlying circumstances and the facts are very different you know you've got when the fact is consolidated allegations in the complaint that were critical to the determination of whether or not there was a duty to find that's when we needed to go and look at something else but here even though it consolidated we don't need to do that happens with the su just briefly i almost find it difficult to see oh what he's arguing up here because the admitted the i'm looking to defend a portion of the allegations of this this single can sounded a case i'm going to be addressed by the court before where there's been consolidated complaints and is there do defend i guess the closest the word consolidated isn't in it but the closest case that we have is the mayor kenny perry versus holabird where there's a