mean but the court and hamid also gave some examples as to what advertising could be and that's what i'd like to start my discussion today because we know what it is but the question is what is advertising that the definition of advertising is hundred waited to the nature of the business of big small doesn't make any difference there's uniformity that's necessary everybody will know what is covered what is not that's correct billboards or bus ventures taking out advertisements in newspapers fairly make sense makes sense to me that makes perfect sense in that in  and hayward is accused of soliciting customers presumably existing customers in saying can we know that that's not advertising we know it's not who are potential customers of him saying he's accused of soliciting potential customers after heavy bribes marketing plans business plans and strategy not talking about customer lists we're not talking about a group of people in the trade we're talking about soliciting potential customers based upon marketing plans strategic plans what was that strateg and business plans now it doesn't say he advertised it doesn't say that he took whatever the information was in the advertising offense the misappropriation of ideas whatever he now in the context of this case as the court knows after reading the text that we've just gone through  a discussion by the california supreme court of one or two cases as an illustration what advertising is not there is clearly close to what you just suggested a very small target audience simply because the nature of the on the other hand we disagree that that's what the california supreme court is doing if you read him need all the examples of the type of activity that is not covered under an advertisement injury claim is one to one communication small group communication things like that we believe that the word solicitation if you go to webster's and just look at one thousand nine hundred six merriam webster's to attempt to to state that mr mr hayward had gone out taking information from the marketing plans or whatnot and use that to develop to solicit potential customers to to to  underlying complaint is ambiguous you don't know whether it's group solicitation or one on one solicitation is that you're polite yeah i don't think that it's a model of clarity of what i am saying is that i'm not i'm not i'm not i'm not here to critique that what i'm here qualifies that it puts it into a certain one on one or limited context in the teaching of the mean we believe that advertising in order to be covered in order to meet the first step you have to show that advertising is for widespread promotional activities directed to the public at large without that you don't see a point we believe that a fair reading of the complaint states that claim all reserve the rest of them i can do it by putting a widespread advertising promotional campaign together appealing to the public at large with a notation at the bottom at least in my website and web site itself great harm those are two different activities i made says in fact that advertising and solicitation are mutually exclusive terms i in fact may want to represent insurance companies rather than centennial and they want to embark on a campaign just list of their business if i embark on that campaign of soliciting their business in the same manner as i would solicit customers i would call on them i would show up on their doorstep and hand them cards i would take them to breakfast i would do things that are under the reading  know i don't think our are very we have it in the excerpts of record page three thirty seven would be the page on which you would find you third site which would be about seven sixty five if i'm estimating right but again the california appellate court following her made has made that proclamation that widespread promotional activity directed to the public at large is the act or practice of calling to public attention one's product service needed cetera especially by paid announcements in newspapers and ma over radio or television on billboards etc and if you look at i've got your pacific third site page seven sixty eight at the top of the page recent decisions to interpret in california law also apply the majority definition when when your honor was addressing the question well if you have joe loves mary in skywriting couldn't that qualify as advertising that your only answer is no because it's not just the scope of the group the entire definition has to be examples one m i broadcasting to the public at large with the intent that everybody is going to see it but most prominently the people i want to view this are going to be large customers or potential customers then the fact is of course it's advertising because i am directing it to the in the video and perhaps you've given a better illustration than i can use the word advertising you provided medium which is i'm putting it on the super bowl i'm putting it on t v in a national campaign thing it's not because it's broadcast to the public at large and bring it back into something that is germane to the duty to defend in this case there's nothing in the complaint remotely speaks of war suggests that tom hayward was engaging in any advertising activity there's no suggestion that he was advertising his goods products or services what we have is a gentleman who took with them customer lists and other things then i made and used them for the purpose that he was trying to develop his relationships with existing clients and we were not looking for welfare here's what he was charged with doing and what he determine whether or not there were facts outside of the complaint that could potentially put it within coverage and if we look at the complaint itself we don't see any of the three elements that we need in order to trigger a duty we don't see in this appropriation of advertising ideas we're style of doing business that is promoting his goods products or services we don't see any advertising and equally importantly we don't see a nexus between the two we have no description of any use of advertising and you are absolutely correct in the abstract if i put on a media campaign in the super bowl that is advertising if i bring someone to the super bowl i use my tickets and i sit up there a box and i talk to him again with the design to get his business that is a potential customer that's not advertising because there is nothing about widespread dissemination of speak to advertising as opposed to marketing if you look at the insurance policy itself insurance policy it says misappropriation of advertising ideas and a marketing campaign indeed if there is the taking of marketing materials again under the three prong test bank of the west and how many of the you have to have misappropriation of advertising ideas a marketing campaign need not be an advertising at the indeed perhaps that would trigger a duty to do further investigation to determine what it means but on the bare faced of the complaint if that phrase were substituted it wouldn't change the outcome secondly you would have to have a link a nexus between the damages claimed by the plaintiffs and the defendant so if you had they took our marketing for water for example does it get over the threshold of advertising ideas does it disturb was a nexus between damages and the taking of  outcome or perry thank you thank you the and again go through when he gets back to the word solicitation and each time that the word solicitation is used as something that is not within the scope of advertising injury it has a qualifier to it works in the context of what we're talking about a small group one on one the types of things that we know are probably not going to trigger this type of coverage are suggesting and i believe that involve either using solicitation now in this context to indicate excludes advertising injury coverage indeed i think that the word solicitation in the context of what we're discussing going back to when the insurer looked at this point that's all the insured