this women's daughter and they were going to drop her off there there was no how wonder children in the vehicle there was no column or people that they were going to see now i want to go back to the question i asked and put the phrases together ok there it mr i'll put the name to mr hollander to the extent he is liable for the use of the state foreman has disagreed with that position and has suggested quick and their brief that there has to be liability on this woman and that this argument should feel because there's been no oil where action against issue to policies to sandra went to and then named insured in this case the first was a person oh i don't know how the city and state fair is providing a defense to mr hollander's estate in the underlying actions because he was a permissive there that's one way it is now a category of anyone using that vehicle with your permission as it would be in that in the primary policy that would  and they're arguing that it's hundred to six c any person or organization to the extent they are liable for the use of an automobile by a person is included in one of the two about categories which was the named insured or someone under twenty one and their argument that because that standard way was using this vehicle and that pair for anybody else who is also using the vehicle in a it of the vehicle as a passenger there's no claims asserted against her in any of the three underlying lawsuits there's no allegations that she was doing anything other than sitting here and being a passenger to the lawsuit she's using it as a passenger there's no allegations or any theory of liability i've asked her for which somebody else could be liable she says she's just sitting there as a passenger in that she's also of the plaintiff and one of the end of lying actually what if she she's the passenger and she for whatever reason grabs the wheel and there's an accident that's a totally different situation and that maybe she's a passenger ship but she did something i operation you know she she doesn't have to be insured here it could be let's say she was running errands for her church it's passed by the church could be legally liable because she's acting in there trying to break it up saying well he was using the vehicle and has liability she was also using the be a cop but now it has to be that nexus of her having some liability i'm sorry her he has to be liable for her use of the code and she has no liability she's a passenger in that she's a plaintiff in one of the underlying actions what if she didn't want to drive when he was doing your  for the use of the novel by a person so in that case the use of the with the she's not really using that because she says that asking somebody facts referenced the language there is nothing ambiguous about it is any person to be extent they're liable for the use of an article by one of these other people he has to be liable for that in this case mr howland for sandra wetlands use as a passenger there's no theory of liability that that would hold somebody else liable for somebody use of a car just sitting there is a passenger and there's as you said there's no allegations that she was doing anything like distracting or grabbing the wheel or any contact on the part of sandra wetland a person in the a or b like a named insured or somebody in the household that it only modifies the word watercraft so bad that what's left is anybody in the world who is using a vehicle motor be called or recreational to get a call would be an insured under the policy that would include anybody in this room using any idea call anybody anything and as long as they're not using that no thank you ok thank you very much is worded and what the issue is well what i guess is the purpose of the in sea organization and the other person or organisation see to it that an empty chair doesn't exist for simply does exist i don't quite if i understand your argument that she's not personally wanted will for her own