governed by an extremely broad and flexible standard i'll get to that in a moment that has to do with of course whether there is any conceivable possibility that a claim by the third party falls within the policy extremely broad standard discuss that later the district court in this case even could not tell that standard was met by the face of the complaint but also state throughout the briefing and even prior to that wants to focus only on the pla specifically had both sons permanently resigned now that the definition of household which is not in the policy but of course the courts have dealt with this over many years the definition of household attempted to find a household as likable to the facts of those cases we don't have a case out there with facts like these we don't so this is against a first impression on that issue and what i wanted to do with that issue since we deal with that first is you have to look at the policy itself what is what is the intent the mutual intent of the parties in in defining who the insured years and who other then the named insured might fall under that definition now if you look at that provision which has to do with again defining who the insured is it first as the insured are the parents in this case ok so we know the parents are insured even though all state insured and who else is insured and you look at the policy provision uninsured in the next possible insured on the policy without going any farther than this provision is resident of your  g the parents household if a relative now what is the purpose of that provision where where in this case you have parents who buy a house owned by them again for the specific purpose of having their child and nobody else live there they're not running it out it specifically for their son or a relative now then the question is ok how do you construe that we don't have a case out there that construes it and our position is under the case law that favors of course the reason why it's for patients of the parties especially when the term is not defined in the policy what does that mean in this case on these facts what it means is exactly what mrs knock it was she thought  purchase the policy and told her agent that i want this policy for this reason she expected for the purpose of this policy on this fax that household would mean i am and my husband this is our household here it's our household seems to be living together and you're running around whether you're related or not that was the issue in that case but that that case did not have the issues we have here where you have two households now albeit parents live in one house the son was in another house they're not in the same house with hole where they are for the purpose yes when they have two family homes and the and and you have two residents places house yes ok yes they're both all by the parents they're both insured by the parents yes and they are named insured separately injury yes yes they are so we're not talking about the parents coverage we're talking about coverage for the son well we're right right right that's right he is not a named insured so the only way he can qualify for coverage is to be the resident resident in a household where the parents reside it's not what it says it's  not that's not such a minimal issue because in fact that goes to the heart of why in california in most jurisdictions mental capacity is capacity now remember and we're not talking about the end result here the ultimate result whether there was coverage we're only talking about the duty to the fan and whether there was any conceivable possibility that that plane of that negligent especially with a complaint plant on its face that he failed to take the medication and this beating was a result not of just some angry dispute but he had a mental condition that he was being treated for that raised the possibility at least a possibility that there was an issue that needed to be investigated the district court when it denied the motion to dismiss so i can't tell from the face of this complaint whether there is any conceivable possibility what else is there her so there wasn't there were no new facts that came to the attention of austin just simply saying that this was an intentional beating that's off we're not going to do anything more about this and because and that's why it's important in this case a very helpful case for our position because it really emphasizes the issue must be confined to what the insurance company knew at the time and tonight of france in that case of course the court recalls also the insurance company did do an investigation but when it investigated the insureds misrepresented fast these are and those facts of course showed that there roof or within a common kernel and that's when it finally does not apply to the situation of how it had moved out of his parents house nearly two years before the incident and had continuously that apart from them the policy doesn't say a resident of a house you want a potentially an accident whether something is an accident depends on the nature of the conduct alleged against the person seeking coverage not on his state of mind or motivation into committing the act here the nature of the conduct was horrible of how much beat up first impression facts in this case there's no dispute that the person claiming coverage resided at these premises in every one of these other cases that was a struggle the courts had a person didn't limit the insur premises so of course the courts had to go through all kinds of hoops and and circles in order to try to expand coverage to somebody who actually didn't live there on the premises this son was the only person who ri  resided in that household and that's why when the policy says this is your parents for mr this is not good she's household for purposes of this policy if yours if your son or some other relative lives in this law the only note that creates the subsequent the show on whose side is still on it was only talking about the insurance code section at the time because in fact there was no policy provision which provided for intentional exclusions in that policy even aside from salamis still have the clamor case the supreme court case that talked about insanity as a medical bill issue and again this issue applies whether it's brought under the statute exclusion or now politics floozies so that is good law claimed that he slipped and fell and hurt her it was a building that was not like that at all what we are saying though is that the capacity that he had was so the message from his mental condition not from drinking or taking recreational drugs like other cases not because he was claiming self defense but because he lacked the capacity to appreciate the consequences of those actions and that's what was a little issue whether or not we were told we would alternately prevail on that issue and so that's why it's the end especially when you look at the broad nature of the duty to the stand as being the insurance company must defend unless it eliminates any conceivable possibility this was not an intentional act and since there was a little belief you honest since the only thing allstate had before was a complaint and nothing else and even judge collins agreed earlier that the face of the complaint didn't provide heard enough confidence to be able to say that the company did not have a duty to foundation on the complaint if you found that same thing all state