and we will hear argument in africa company versus federal insurance only unintended or unforseen acts or events and drops the unintended consequences portion of the definition that was adopted and employed and applied klein because they want to come under recall they want the plaintiffs have been injured in their business and or property and the only statement as i understand it that you would hang finally injury on is this statement in paragraph five that says kids teenagers spend several hundred dollars on the habit is that right well there's there's also an allegation or in paragraph twenty one there's a statement that the plaintiffs want the court to determine whether up against violations caused injury to the members of the pla standard we look at the allegations at this point there's no extrinsic evidence i think there's just the complaint too so to agree with you we would have to say that you would have disgusting among other things how the children who buy these trees cars to chase these cars put in sort of packs become addicted or hooked on gambling and all the kinds of consequential problems they develop as a result of this gambling addiction crucial on the spinal injury issue because we're not just talking about bodily injury suffered by the represented plaintiffs but also by the represented class members and so the studies talk about children you know becoming the implication of children's addiction equals disease within the meaning of the policy money on the have it on the have it ok so the key word is have it yes just have it equal disease within the meaning of the coverage language of the policy here as interpreted by any california case and if not what's the hostess that you can point to that helps me at least deal with the legal issue here you know that's a very good question for unfortunately i don't have an answer for you that's not an issue then that we've general and versus all state and as the court will recall that was the case where the insurer had a romantic relationship with the underlying plaintiff and intentionally terminated the relationship and then intentionally fail not intend to cause injury that's also the holding of numerous california court of appeal opinions where the california supreme court has declined to grant review so certainly the california supreme court has said a language and hogan and very stated that it provided coverage for grammar just caused by accident subsequently the standard policy language has been changed and the policy language the coverage was for the damages caused by actually nine hundred sixty six the standard policy language was changed to basically provide that it provides coverage for damages probably inju unintended unexpected all of the actually leading up to that injury were intended namely the packaging the trading cards stating the odds of obtaining a but the evidence that was presented to try to the stablished that there was not only injury in this case required reference to the declarations and material from the american psychiatric california cases are very clear that you have to distinguish between a complaint that seeks the nature and kind of lost legally damages covered by the policy on an uncovered theory because the complaint might be another to seek the type of thing that's covered by your standard bodily injury property damage policy and you know since the complaint was never amended there was no duty to defend it and i just want to make sure that i have t as the allegation of habit children teenagers spending up hundreds of dollars a month on the habits and then there is a statement that one of the things that they're asking the questions determine is whether upper decks violation of statutory law