that if facts as alleged in whatever label cause of action trigger the plants because they fall within the tension coverage and the duty to the fund is though even though no labeled cause of action two thousand to explain why facts analogous to those here created a duty to defend because under pertinent language right relevant there there was disparagement at issue and explained which and laser rash the falling says it seems obvious to this court that wrongfully asserting that a competitor's product infringes patton's certainly the fames a competitor and if spirit is his products whether that form of libel is inflicted by the fact allegations that are here it is you don't need to look however to illinois decision to find analogous fact patterns those present in this case there is a decision by this court the pence in trust fund decision in two thousand and two wherein the court made the following observations as california courts repeatedly found the remote facts varied within causes of action make  the allegations that the insured had intentionally issued misleading statements i did file champ counter claims for the purpose of me tainting the monopoly position now enjoyed it   i think you can find that under the broad potentiality of coverage standard that we have an argument similar to that in the laser at paragraph seventeen petrochem has represented to the sell you free and clear of intellectual property liens products are engaged in production methods and production of products that will of the ones that it has no ownership in for stand and his stuff if the claims respecting and so any source goods from such a company will not be of the kind represented i e those you can use without yourself running the risk of being sued for infringement so that's what really talking officers record well we don't have a democratic prison officers policy here and you'd have to look as to when the company made the statements the level of knowledge of the people making it but it's possible that they could typically within those are nested claims disparagement vital which is what we have here moving to the exclusion because that's where they spend a lot of their energy it's it's a very broad exclusion admittedly but than on ambiguity it's a higher standard in the winner of court cases and there statistics the court found defamation alleged where the following allegations were served that the members of a particular condominium universal found libel tricked out where the specific allegations with the complaint were simply that this ambulance service disseminated false information libel well in other words the courts found ever came to the surface and what was going on was that there was a mere allegation that false information was disseminated about this ambulance services competitor and the there was a campaign to get the public to call some of the facts but it's basically that we were pursuing our intellectual property rights that we knew we did not rightfully possess to obtain and on a lawful market it vanished and communicating with the public that out what it is that they could not do i e potentially buy products from our competitor because our car intends to do that if you look at the  that the conduct of a competitor is wrongful and you use the allegations in the complaint to a factual wait the end of driving the customers away from your the personal injury coverage granted now the california courts have seen this game tried for some time and there is case law that's developed which the ninth circuit has some rights somewhat recently in the upper deck trading card case th the ninth circuit said that in that situation that so that there are obviously this court and applying california law that any such amendment that you might speculate about must be supported by the facts already planted in the complaint that this isn't a situation where you get to speculate about actions and facts that you have you know three fifths of a cause of action or alleged or whatever if you are seeking coverage on the basis of a claim for relief that is not even them glad you had a minimum need to show the facts in  and that's simply not alleged here in this underlying case there was a reference by opposing counsel for petrochem to the third and fourth claims for relief in the counterclaim those are both unfair competition claims of course which is the express es the fans continue that it was harmed let me welcome harm by unfair competition and if this is the allegation which you know you take is true and so on that are like an unfair competition by any you know attempt to whatever monopolize your corner of the market by asserting a patent and you see those sorts saying customers might not want to buy a product if there's a cloud as to its title there's a question as to whether they're going to be sued for hat infringement fine if that's the entry that's at best trade live and then that's that's even assuming you could get into falsity and all of those other things that still fall into trade libel even even if you were to kind of disregard the fact that no false statements about advantage were ever alleged in advantages counterclaim so the on the abuse of process count to it's there is no is consistent with fact it wasn't planned but if you're going to apply this upper deck standard which which is fully consistent with the california law and state are each of the facts necessary to plead an abuse of process cla somehow sprinkled throughout this complaint that sues for a lot of other things but doesn't sue for abuse of process then you do need to look at the question of what are the elements of that claim and how those facts lead because if they aren't you just speculating like that if they want us to consider that in the course of the claim process they need to submit it to us and asked us to consider the relevant time and not generate evidence twenty one months after the denial keep it to themselves to settle the case and then give it to us four months later so you know i can i can i can leave that that i can go into more detail on that i think i think they that they don't get petrochem where it needs to be anyway finally even if the coverage grant were satisfied as even if you could shoehorn a plane into this counterclaim for personal injury exclusion applies person applies to personal injury arising out of the intellectual property hazard and the intellectual property hazard is defined to include the suit or claim that in any way relating to or arising out and you know the point of this is lisa is pretty clear from looking at it it's pretty clear from reading it's a straightforward brought exclusion is that the company is not insuring these claims in suits that relate to these various intellectual property and when the coverage grant is part of the part of a standard form you see insurance services office down there at the foot of the foot or running on the coverage form i throw forms have coverage and coverage b that's that's no surprise they have for a few decades now  and then you have indorsements that modify the coverage forms and that's no surprise either richards and brokers and everyone understand that's the way it works and there's nothing on clearer ambiguous about this exclusion it comes in and it takes out coverage be to the extent that relates to the actual property hazards and i want to make it very clear there are still quite a bit of coverage be that is not eliminated by this and i think there's been an argument that this somehow creates a loser coverage that does not first of all most of coverage a still through and that's what most businesses by insurance for for the most part bodily injury and property damage coverage the traditional speech for just a second is even within coverage beat there are offenses that aren't listed and don't have anything to do with intellectual property including false arrest  that are not affected by by the types of claims are typically going to be in this intellectual property hazard and even as to the other offense categories including the most prosecution category b and b libel slander trade libel type allegations of category d if you could still have claims presented that are not within the scope of the exclusion if they're just either you have you're facing a malicious prosecution or abuse of process case and nothing to do with unlawful property has nothing to do with policy for that type of suit so it's not a situation where coverage b is wiped out entirely similarly if you have a person alive or defamation again i commit in the course of your business you could be talking to someone else about a vendor any theory of recovery and a counterpoint by advantage that isn't fundamentally premised on related to arises out of having a frenchman and unfair competition or at best trade libel and in light of that this is hours of no doubt seen devote a substantial effort to a couple of twenty page decisions in this case and just as you're honest and read those complaints and counter claims and know what they're about judge gonzales wasn't a leader she knew what the underlying case was about and the underlying exclusion if you look at seagate you'll see what they're doing they're forgetting that the only thing that counts is what we cursed have personal injury coverage what was alive was so that ok the libel so that is just basically stating that  there is a question as to the viability of the source of goods of advantage because of the products that sell because of the way it's infringing that is and a reasonable understanding of the allegations made fa apply to seven thousand two hundred claims you can't have it both ways you have narrow exclusions unfair competition that means anything more than palming off with even straight the coverage for trademark trade dress trade libel which would otherwise stories ponse were available to them doesn't matter as long as we gave them prompt notice of the claim they are facts that the court can look to the clarify what the potential for coverage that was available there under  if you allow them to have this exclusion interpreted the way they argue with here you're going to go against the dictates of seagate case and your calls to be inconsistent with the three supreme court decisions narrowly constru