trigger a coverage trigger of the occurrence having to be during the policy period which of the cases you rely on the policy your do in the lead involved with here have the injury being the trigger during the coverage involve the exact same policy language that we're looking at here there was also there was a district indiana case versus elkhart i believe is the name of the one there's other cases there is an idaho supreme court  you if you look at those cases you know whether or not they're talking about and this is expands out into some of the other decisions as well the decisions involving offense space policies or occurrence space policies  based policies there's a common theme or a thread that i think you can see in those cases and that common thread is a manifestation and even in the cases where you know the courts are constructing a fen based language they looked at when is the injury manifesting and they said that the injury in these cases is manifesting immediately upon the wrongful conduct that takes place the initiation two immediate opinions from which these appeals are taken is the an issue that incarceration is continuing for the entire period is that a fair assessment of his opinion that he doesn't look at to the diseases they're accumulating just all the things that happened to him in prison and i think that is correct i think that's exactly what the district court judge did and he cited and if you look at the opinion what he focused on was the imprisonment and false imprisonment is a personal injury offense in in the policy in the traveller's policies and the judge has said false imprisonment or said imprisonment was ongoing throughout this entire time period so we're going to use that trigger these policies because then wouldn't alleged throughout that time period now maybe they had some details about exactly what types of injuries that they are claiming but if you look at the allegations of the complaint they're very specific about that they're saying we suffered the exact same injuries throughout this time period began day one and continued and and it's our tension based in and also based on the allegations of the complaint they cite to only the conduct in the seventy nine and eight hundred eighty mississippi and illinois law that we pointed out in our briefs that that's fishing guides to be all for the court to be able to reach a conclusion here and answer basically mange you would accept just winning here but a certified question to the supreme court of mississippi would be fourth county in the underlying complaint and it made two fundamental errors with respect to the scottsdale policy first of all the court ruled erroneous lee that the complaint alleges a personal injury offense that was committed during this got still policy scot still policy period came on five years late eighty five eighty six there are no allegations of any kind of wrongful act wrongful conduct by the county during our policy period it seems to be the most difficult thing i've heard with your argument is looking at your policy which covers both bodily injury and personal injury you're certainly right that the personal injury we're dealing with civil rights violations false imprisonment does talk about the offense being committed doing the eighty five eighty six period bodily injury is there as well i don't see anything in the policy or in case law that you cite to us in which it is hailed that a policy like this means that if you have something that fits within personal injury it has to remain on a personal injury coverage only even though bodily injury definition may well covered as well so you get into the problem of any ambiguity will be able to get you where you have that really says it's a personal injury during the policy period in your right of the cases don't say that one way or another but we have here's this complaint we have to look at this complaint the delegations in the claims that are surveyed in this underlying complaint and compare that to the policy and this is a complaint clear personal injuries talking more about emotional and mental type damages and then you have a separate bodily injury which has to be given effect for harm to your physical body or definition personal injury also  the claim through the false imprisonment false arrest of tension in the civil rights violations those are some of the things that are in memory and i've got it right here under trying to sort out what the differences because they both have to cover seemingly different things i think is your point to vaccine under the civil rights act and section one hundred eighty five those are squarely covered by the person one right but you're saying you can get bodily injury recovery which is a separate category if it results from a constitutional claim covered under agrees all this happened and they sue for false imprisonment would you say they just can come under personal injury that they can't also recover bought what's in what's included in bodily injury yes and that's all you're saying they can never get these injuries for and i wanted to bring you back to the false imprisonment false imprisonment the court found false imprisonment during the scottsdale policy period as being a separate injury itself which is the second error false imprisonment and mr don't discuss this and these issues are different injury that would trigger a subsequent policy in fact that the mississippi supreme court although it didn't dress insurance coverage issues it looked at and we cited this case in our brief the smithy sneed case that if a wrongful incarceration would be an injury that occurs at the time of conviction and it doesn't occur it doesn't it's not a continuum and wouldn't continue until later on one time phrase and so the court here the district court was wrong in selling to follow the majority of jurisdictions failing to consider the smith the sneak case which is from the mississippi supreme court and concerning both of those the better area guess is that the mississippi court would rule that false imprisonment in a policy parents subsequently is not itself an injury or an offense that triggers coverage and no matter who the carrier is it's typically the same wording and so there's a lot of litigation over what a particular word means who happens over and over and over again here one looks at the law enforcement liability policies in the file or even in the  element in the policy and see if the complaint contains allegations that if true would invoke the element of cover because the policy is also written to cover claims that are groundless or false or fraudulent one thing we haven't talked about this specific model the end result occurred uniquely during the periods of these particular insurers and did not exist before the periods and that's where i think the description of the light perhaps doesn't do it justice in two thousand cautious to pull that kind of insurance concept into this into this case particularly if it's not necessary in order to resolve necessary mean coverage but with respect to the injury triggered policy where the only thing the policy requires happen during the period of this policy is that there be some form of injury and where the complaint alleges some form of  under the travelers policy and so judge perry did not adopt a rule he didn't adopt single trigger continuous printer cripple creek or any kind of privilege he simply said my task here is because there say that policy at that point was stripped coverage based on a time period and so this is not a continuous for a ruling as it's been written and is not required to be a continuous program willing to be a firmed i would argue if if i had to i don't have to here today but i would argue if i had to do that a policy triggered by injury is triggered by the injury of loss of civil rights which of companies and but i don't have to do that here because fact you would be saying any injury triggered policy you basically want to need to rely on can this control you is a continuous trigger theory because is there always been injury with as long as there's an injury in the policy period it does i white on the basis of being involved in providing insurance coverage in the event there is injury during the policy period it is simply a straightforward application of what the policy says to require those policies to respond not under the personal injury section but bodily injury does the work you that policy does describe wrongful act and if it said the one collected be committed during the policy period i think knowledge that what it says is that in a personal injury must be committed during the policy period and see if once of the person fits defined as one of the personal injury offenses must be committed well you must have a commission of a violation of property rights of civil rights false i policy in mississippi is the toward itself that is the personal injury and not the injury not the damage from it it is the way the case law little that there is as interpreted personal injury policy so i'm not i'm just trying to say if you invoke the mississippi rule that you've just described i think the scottsdale policy says that if i am long fully in prison if i am falsely imprisoned or if my civil rights are violated during the period of this policy that is the offense is an effort by the supreme court to say what is the tort of being in jail because your lawyer didn't do the good job and it's them or his fault that i was there for that length of time so it's not just it's not a statutory argument seems to me at all interpretation at all it seems to me it's even interpretation and what does it mean to be falsely imprisoned windows that occur i don't think the court meant to say that i don't think that we did say that there was no false imprisonment over the time i do think the court said this that for a legal malpractise case against the lawyer who caused it that the statue of limitations is based on when his legal malpractise caused that person to go to prison which is when the tort was complete the fact that  person stayed in prison for a long time is just more damage just as in any other tort that has continuing damage that to me you are is a very distinct question from what an insurance policy provides coverage for insurance policy provides coverage for whatever it says and those two things are at any time then there is coverage for that injury that occurred during that policy period to me that doesn't pile on all kinds of insurance coverage or create a problem because each carrier is going to try to restrict i liability under that wording to the increment of damage that occurred while it was on the wrist it will actually be far better for law enforcement officials because the you know as in this case the carriers who used to write these policies years ago when it was a brand new idea are all gone and if we track all these cases back to your one and say it's like malicious prosecution so it's complete with the prosecution and then you're going to have a lot of people with no coverage at all and that's probably not a great thing because typically the rule is that one should look at insurance coverage in a way that benefits the policyholder if that's a reasonable reading of the policy the way that it's been written and sold to the insured i think he found that it wasn't necessary to look at or adopt a common wall rule of trigger it's necessary to read the policy and see what it requires and he found that it was matt if you do that that's existing law that is not a new question at all that is simply the application of settled law that he cites in his orders and it's been around everybody implements every single day or over the country so i would say there's no need to certify it to a farm if the court certified it we would argue in the mississippi supreme court that judge garrett accurately determine that the wording of these policies makes it unnecessary to go out and start writing new legal rules that have the effect of changing the meaning of the policies he was supposed to compare the four corners of policy to the four corners of the complaint and your brief an interesting wishing a lot of you know they cite a long list of cases and i know you distinguish them saying there are currents triggers accent or a gun but you also seem to say well mississippi's different because in mississippi it's all about the policy language not these common law rules in just about every state isn't it about the policy language and i mean texas it's certainly it's the same a coroner's rule different in that that rule hasn't been ignored in mississippi up to now in the way that it was in some of these other cases you know they're  inguishable for a lot of reasons including some are in states with manifestation triggers already established in the law of the state for essentially all torts that's the case in florida for example where that broward county cases so have a legal rule that says the issue isn't when the injury occurred even if the policy says so the issue is when the cause of the injury occurred even if the policy doesn't say so that's illinois so there are a lot of reasons why several of these are what all of these are distinguish if if we implied that that is that differentiates mississippi from the other fifty states then we probably overstated that but i'm out of time thank you very much i not specifically state that those those allegations would trigger these policies but even if the judge had relied on that we cited a number of cases that hold that failure to come forward with the exonerat evidence subsequent to the prosecution is not a new triggering event that's just a continuation of the original harm the original conduct in the continuation of the old facts of that imprisonment i'm not sure is before us one of your thought of the brief either or in the district court argued that these were not the same law enforcement officials who were dealing with the pros they were not covered individuals and therefore their actions would be relevant is that i'm all in play anymore defend context yes is it clear from the complaint that these people aren't covered the people who handle the parole given camilla duty to defend context it's obviously gets interpreted very broadly at this stage as opposed to a duty to indemnify situation i think it is clear from the from the complaint that they are talking about other entities if you look at the complaint as a whole the only conduct they're talking about the forest county was involved in is on the front end in seventy nine eighty and this subsequent county to i mean you're talking about failure to provide proper medical care during during the incarceration for exposure to the general conditions or in prison these are apply some type of of continuous treatment which again has been rejected and and frankly if you look at the concept it continues trigger and how it operates acute tells you why it doesn't apply these types of claims because they apply it from the initiation of the injurious conditions exposure as best as up until the manifestation of that of that injury and it's because of the uncertainty and that type or they're going to get all these this you know policies five years after the imprisonment began triggers covers that is in effect in actuality the continuing trigger you continue into with respect to the scotts tell policy language for your own personal injury coverage and the offense committed during the policy period this is why we use language we cited a number of cases in our brief that employ extremely similar language there are slight differences from policy to policy and you'll notice that if you look at the courageous case golf underwriting sars field  widely used language and i certainly disagree with opposing counsel's characterization that discuss the intended to mean something different in mississippi it's very similar to the zork policy language that was at issue in the same case and we raise this in our brief where judge sturt found that offense committed during the policy period and the desert policy meant there was no personal injury in very similar circumstances that the same language on our policy on the judge found an injury during a policy it's widely used language is not intended or that there is no reasonable interpretation that offense means an injury under the scout self and to rule otherwise would mean that is essentially if the district court's ruling front that imprisonment is an offense during our policy heard would defy this court's ruling in the american during t case and i can guarantee applied that offense committed during the policy period language and in different circumstances was an invasion of privacy case but that sneak is the smith was the mississippi supreme court that looked at a continuing injury from continuing imprisonment and consider that one injury and talk about the continuing ill effects it playfully being entitled to more damages for two insurance companies the only ones who have it are paying any part of the claims that were brought by these plaintiffs not just in the settlement but there are a lot of actions before we got to that settlement where i would say