this proving to be the second amended complaint against his own right which he sent to the plaintiff saying here take a look at this this is well we've got to file control let alone the type of controlling the magnitude of control will that might create and  attributed to the sub contractor northwest's now these are very charming provisions in construction contracts general contractor does not want to be held liable for something it sucks contract or does will insure his respects the liability that may be imputed to civil are rising out of northwest operations performed for civil now unfortunately on this project young men named michael holloway i was as counsel mentioned there was also an amended complaint that added a specific count against still constructors title vicarious liability and then the second amendment complaint which had specific actions of northwest's for which point it is seeking the or civil liable for example northwest filch required that his subcontractors had it working reverse alarm on their truck now also as part of his lawsuits there are  that northwest liability could be imputed to civil constructors if it if it's could it's possible there has to be a duty to defend now in terms of vicarious liability in the construction negligence context we look at section four fourteen of the restatement that governs construction negligence claims in common for me to section four fourteen addresses claims of vicarious liability now the courts in this state in the more easy a case the address the type of control that would be needed to get to liability under section four fourteen one of the factors that this court intended to argue that civil was liable under both the direct theory of negligence in under a vicarious liability pursued the section four fourteen at hearing on that motion judge albert found that a question of fact remain as to whether the contract between civil and northwest if civil enough control over the seat can program that would could potentially create a scenario where there c upon the primary contract between i doubt and civil what items in the country down there cited in our brief in full but her graph three point one four point nine of the sub contract was the critical factor that states we we argued against that in judge albert disagreed with our argument and found that a question of fact suitable for a jury is this it as to whether civil had she troll of the work site sufficient so that liability to rise against it under section off or one for now counsel has made a lot of the fact that the contract itself uses the phrase independent contractor but if you look at the law all the case which  to the eleanor supreme court essentially said that the label in the contract doesn't matter you have to go beyond the contract when determining whether there can be a finding of vicarious liability back again to common day in say in section four fourteen specifically uses the phrase independent contractor so that little alone is not to be end of the question if you look at some of the cases not in this district but outside this district discussed for fourteen liability they also make the same argument that just because there's language in a contract saying one thing if a look at the entirety of the circumstances thank you  specific type of situation in which civil constructors one is a defense from northwest in which an accident occurred a northwest portion of the project in which civil constructors has ensued no has also made arguments about the contribution act and how that means that you never meet liability in huge it to civil in this case based on the ass northwest that's simply untrue no insurance and whatnot inside incivil gets hit with eighty three percent at trial thirty percent fall and northwest is found seventy percent of all guess what civil is going to be on the hook for the entire one hundred percent the other  obvious reason that there's a problem with that logic is essentially creates illusory publishers if he exists is the contribution and by itself creates a scenario where any time you're in a construction endorsement provides no coverage provides no benefits northwest is certainly provides no benefit to civil so insurance i would guess the courts this insurance policy the underlying accent was horrific and i'm telling you that because the potential liability and the underlying case is huge that is why northwest has a and internet on interest in assibility for coverage in casco talks about that he converses home or talks about that and there is no way if you look at the original complaint the image of complaint which has a  the united fire under any way shape or form could say absolutely no possibility and you know why i had searched the fact that they found the deck action they are acknowledging that there was maybe there was somebody of coverage all wrong and which there are no allegations of negligence by anyone of any sort against the employer in this case we have allegations from straight oh we have allegations from civil construct that the employer is negligent it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to figure that the plaintiff is also going to be pursuing a theory on her for fourteen vicarious liability particularly when in amended complaint there is the entire comp label vicariously liability in as the course is said you can't rely on the moons of the draft or in this case it was it was you know if we drafted