the court today an issue is did the defendant insurance company needed burden of proof and it was their burden of proof to show that there was only one occurrence of this partial lapse and i insist that the answer in this case is no i understand i might be picture a bookshelf in your house just in there so the third floor which was built of inferior wood inadequate went down and then the second floor put a stake but it didn't it collapsed also into the first floor so there's there's one scorch bill to very shabbily no permits no nothing and it lasted for a few years i don't know why but it did and then it fell so it is a never guess either legal or illegal basis i see the factual difference proof and to show that everybody died the same time for the same reason they didn't even try they didn't even try they say they just want to keep it real simple and stupid one fortunately ups want it her that is not the way it you know everybody didn't die at the same time everybody was uninjured at the same time and everybody wasn't injured or dead for the same reason the people standing on the third floor  traumatic stress did not occur that it occurred later don't they have to go back to even try to prove that everything's the same time and space they say no we're just going to cause test and i say no this case i mean the negligent continuing importantly that there was no intervening or subsequent loss and number two they conceded it page six of their appellate reply brief that the porch collapse was the only c of all their injuries and deaths as ms rosen just announced the parties are in agreement that we are in an office theory state not in effect there he stayed in the supreme court in ny court which is still the law of this great state along with the vast majority of jurisdictions by the way checked there's i think there is one that does the other way you have fact state that's louisiana and that's it there's even a split of authority there so it is overwhelming and it is simple it's not stupid with all due respect it is simple the night before and all the jurisdictions that follow that say and get to determine the number of occurrences under an insurance policy you look at the cause of the injuries now we have the parties have seventy nine stipulated facts and there are five of them that are absolutely critical to the analysis here that i think find that make the finding inexcusable that we have one cause all injuries and gas and therefore when the curves stipulated facts seven and eight all forty two plaintiffs were on the porch system when it suddenly and immediately collapsed causing all their injuries and deaths stipulated fact nine the bridge collapse was not interrupted by any human act or other preceding or subsequent events stipulated facts fifty four and fifty five all the deaths injuries and mental conditions result did the rectally and soley from the porch collapse and there were no intervening acts or circumstances which could have or did contribute to the cause of the deaths injuries for mental conditions as judge father rama found in his well reasoned opinion below there was only one cause of the plaintiff's injuries and test the porch collapse and therefore one occurrence under the first special interest corporation policy now the language of our in quotes is to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in the contract and calls and i think big it was terms of are given their plain in ordinary meeting illinois courts have found the exact language that we have in our policy that definition of occurrence to be clear and unambiguous the plaintiffs agree to the wording of that there's no issue on the ambiguity and to summarize what policy says and in there's very strict very stipulation sixty and sixty one on the policy language  it says fs i see will pay those sums the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury qua spine occurrence an occurrence is defined by as an accident during the policy arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of the premises and that the limits of the declarations fix the most that fs i c will pay regardless of the number of insureds claims made or brought or persons or organisations making claims or bringing suits and each occurrence limit is the most we'll pay for the some damages and that's one million dollars there's a general aggregate of two million those under no effect theory it's three her sisters three damaged cars and under the clause there they said the fact that the damage to all three cars resulted from the same conditions and was inflicted as part of an unbroken  understand why they did what is the purpose of the time and space is very telling her how to have a home of the post traumatic stress syndrome injuries apply in this case how the council continues that  directly caused by all their injuries and mental conditions and that stipulated fact fifty four fifty five resulted from the injuries that were sustained when the torch  and that's which ones now all the time and space test your honor only applies in to when there's two things going on number one there's i'm going continuous  negligence and number two there's a separate independent and later in time injury causing offense and we have neither of the above there nothing on going yes it was built in one year and several years later the porch list system collapsed but once it collapsed there was nothing on about the negligence it ceased with that event that caused injury and death every forty all forty two people so the second part was whether there separate leader in time injury causing the vets and no one could have gotten hurt or injured or died after the porch collapse it was done and and then six months later somebody unrelated to that person jumps the fence in the same thing happens maybe they get hurt and what the court said is it's not right to be able to bundle those things unless the cause and result he's too injury causing events that two different people that die at separate times are simultaneous like what we have here with which left or the and there is not another injury causing the right and the but the judge probably said it in the interest of you know completeness he applied it here and he said well even if you do apply it the record is very clear that all the hinge all forty two people were on the court system that's the space element and it all happened in a moment  you know it's different than the situation if we had a railing where they could give way and on day one one person went up to the third floor and fell over the property owner didn't know about it and then three months later somebody  injury event but in edison there was there was nothing ongoing once you know nothing that continued after the guy the owner didn't check this fence and built it properly the voice fell did they say you couldn't bun a friend and a friend falls in the pad you might go to try to save them but if you're lost somewhere else and you come by about fifteen minutes later and you see your friend dead in the past and you might not try the same thing or you might not try to a half hour later it's more likely than not that they were collapse we don't have any evidence of how long somebody was under the rubble suffocating we do have evidence the only evidence we have is that somebody died forty three hours later you can assume that when the person is one person who died the secondary and her brother and her best friend and they both died she would have been suffering enough but for the porch collapse no question about it but it did that happen then and there not  this case when you have a parent sure of your insurer and yourself if so if you get something that person doesn't have enough insurance you have you i am you can take care yourself in this case this was this was by people or just you know they they were assigned  claim against his insurance company and that's why we're going forward but they didn't they didn't have any option to get their own insurance and so i don't think that this this case is anything like a car insurance