on the potential for an allegation of by carious liability in the allegations of the underlying complaint but we differ over what it means to satisfy that potential and what is required to satisfy that notion of potential that difference reflects a larger split in illinois law over whether the potential covered claim must actually be in the allegations themselves or if the allegations of the complaint need only make it possible for a plaintiff to allege this appeal turns of on the question of potential and what it means in the insurance coverage context specifically we should these understanding's of potential fits into the well established law concerning the standard with a duty to do that this court should recognize the duty to defend standard because it looks to the allegations of the underlying complaint before comparing them to the provisions surance policy requires that those allegations must actually appear in the underlying complaint the underlying allegations that is must contain a potential vicarious liability claim not really leave it open as a theoretical possibility the underlying complaint here might not foreclose the possibility of some white areas liability claim but about you talk about the allegations of the complaint the allegation refers to the agent servants and employees and in focusing on the notion of agents the court can just look at that language by itself look at that language in the context of the sentence where it appears the twin shores by and through its agents servants and employees was then they're guilty guilty of one or more of the following careless in their tracks so it isn't simply a matter of whether twin shores can be held legally liable electrics negligence or anyone else's negligence on a vicarious liability theory it's whether twin shores actually committed those negligent acts now it may have actually committed them through other persons perhaps th individuals any corporation can only act through individuals sometimes agents sometimes servants or employees it may act through individual persons it may act through other legal entities who themselves are acting through individual persons but any corporation that acts through another party whether individual or not is still acting on its own be happy it is acting itself it is its own actions and that is very different from the notion of being legally liable for something yet still being blameless or innocent of the actual acts a claim of vicarious liability might also involve an agent but it wouldn't involve guilt and that's what  is to be held responsible or can be held responsible for the actions of and some electric even if it itself was was not the one who committed them and that would be the case i'm sorry that were the case in a vicarious liabilit situation which is not what's here in this case if this case were to go to trial the jury instruction would read that the acts of of twin shores include those acts of  manson electric assuming that that the agency were to be proved or if it is it if it were to be a question of fact if that was something for the jury to determine whether that relationship actually existed then there would there are at instructions that cover the question of agency was the question would come down to the question of whether henson electric had done something on the one hand and whether twin shores had done something and there may be complicated questions that need to be intensely i think there could be questions of your instructions going to that issue in both cases whether we were talking about what we have here without bikers or a case that did clearly allege some sort of fake areas liability in which even if the jury words of find for instance that the two insurers did nothing wrong was completely innocent of any negligence or wrongdoing and yet could still be found to be responsible  for the standard that requires not just the broader standard for any coverage case of comparing the language of the underlying complaint to the provisions of policy but specifically finding there must be a potential  that both to insurers and and selectric were liable for their own negligence but it's those allegations and the fact that they are so clear that set up the potential horrifying the named insured was negligent and that is the potential that allegation that there was anything that made the additional insured legally responsible for the name insurers act and omissions despite being factually blameless for them and without some allegation to that effect there's no potential for vicarious liability correct them there would be no doubt there would be an allegation of alleging by various liability if that were the only thing that were changed your honor i respectfully suggest that would not change anything about this analysis it would i would read first that it's if it doesn't change anything because it doesn't change the notion of guilt it still says would we still would allege that twin sure's acting through someone else but nonetheless acting itself was guilty or in some fashion communicated that the liability was to be imposed against to insurers despite the fact that it was blameless for the negligence of the other party and this is unfortunately only something if there was a shared responsibility which frankly of of seem reasonable to view the pleadings in this case as pleading shared responsibility between twins shores and henson if you compare count one and count what might get argued a trial but that's a different question than what it is that is looked to in determining whether the insurance coverage there may be some sense that in the at the trial court if this if this complaint goes to trial in this form there may be some sense that it's it's all kind of the same thing all the leads together and all these difficult to distinguish and they are so they do sound similar in a lot of ways sure your theory here is presented on appeal the allegations in the underlying complaint would have to be sufficiently clear that we could for close of from consideration a potential vicarious liability find being a erted by playing him against twin shores or the acts of and since employees it would need to be apparent from our review of the comply that's correct and it would need to be clear enough on the face of the complaint that it would be appropriate to sense but the potential that's referred to in the cases that they require the potential for a cover claim require that potential to be in the allegations of not to be something floating air that might someday  be subject of a complaint that might perhaps after course after judgment complaints can be amended what we're dealing with at the coverage stage is what's in the complaint and is that potential in the complaints that the suggest that the potential is something other than what's on paper other than what's on wood within the four corners of the land and those cases of are more broadly thinking of what would tension could be allege but when you talk about what potentially could be a let i submit you are automatically going beyond what actually is about and it's what actually is alleged that drives the coverage and that is coverage case law going d there's no reason to have explored it based on what is in the complaint perhaps an overly actions a overly diligent but overly aggressive counsel for two insurers might investigate as a possibility but can't be blamed for not having done so when there is no allegation that effect here and no suggestion that the relationship between the two parties might give rise to that that sort of claim that the standard for  words vicarious liability now that it wouldn't help to include those words that would be useful but they're not essential i don't mean to suggest they are what's necessary though is is there substance and the notion that  shores is to be held liable for the allegation that it it must be held liable because of its relationship to a party because its relationship to a party makes it legally responsible for that ar sure that the notion of vicarious liability involves the notion of being legally responsible for something you didn't do legally responsible despite being innocent or blankets and the allegations is it's outside the complaint of course but it informs that the notion of what that relationship was and further diminishes the idea that ensign electric could in fact of the twenty shorts could in fact  a that that's a factual issue if it goes to that question it certainly is to the advantage of people's argument but what's critical is the allegations i can't stress enough an allegation of something that already was in fact guilty of these alleged acts of nations is what takes it away from the notion of by kerry's liability that's a direct lie that's you know and that is inconsistent with the notion of and so is it under reasonable to say well yes they're guilty because of their reason they're responsible for the actions of this other party even if they're not if not that still makes them guilty because of that response ability is that a reasonable interpretation of the respectfully right it's not to be legally responsible for something it is a different enough concept that if it should be pleaded differently and i stress it it's not too much i think to ask an underlying player to make that allegation but if it is in fact support and this is not one of the cases there are some in which the courts say i see my time to there's employer i submit that that's not enough of a reason because they could still have alleged in those cases that the employer the named insured was negligent and the additional insurance jury instruction plaintiff's attorney wanted to ask my curious liabilities question shore's i believe if they go to the court and show the judge should they have evidence presented during the course of get paragraphs three and five of both counts one and two and i think the allegations are sufficient i know that the concept that pique is bringing here is we would like this more narrow view of the interpretation of this contract where you're really just sticking your eyes on the four corners of the pleadings and the insurance country that's it nothing else and i think it's really myopic and i also think it goes beyond it doesn't take into consideration the real world it's just the really narrow view of a contract that they drafted sold to there and shirts their shirts came to them i mean i think in the real world the gallic of my client and what happened my client wants to shoot for construction cases prohibits them from getting that so the only real action they have it's done all the time in illinois is that the general contractor says that the sub get your c g l policy but i want you to make sure you add me hansen screws up i'm covered and henson thinks the same thing now we get to a stage in the beginning of the discovery and we find out he can say oh wait there's all these little things that preclude it and so he if he can is narrowing and rewriting its contract my request for denial of of the appeal is not to expand the insurance contract as counsel complaint laura minute complain that law was spied on i think i think the correct law was applied to the facts of this case and i do believe the judge made their ruling given the law and so i believe that you don't his ruling drawn they were the the drafter of insurance which of course is a peak and so even though they rely on united contractors i mean even you know even when she can says well you can't really look beyond the beyond the complaint it's own case  versus wilson are illinois supreme court said in wilson page four sixty four sixty one that the court should look beyond the younger lying complaint law it doesn't need to wear judicial blinders being i believe was the name of the temporary agency the decision to state suit he'll be because he'll be paid him but the truth that matter is when he was working on this site henson was in charge of telling him where to go when to go and everything so there is a great chance that henson is going to have here some responsibility here because going to be a responsibility directly but you know he could have this case earlier they should done some investigation figured out you know before buying a deck action but what are the facts is there some potential vicarious liability here they could have they could have found that out but the wilson court also says that you must destroy the insurance policy as a whole taking into account the type insurance purchased the nature of the risk involved in the overall an additional feature the whole intent was to protect the interests of twin shores if henson screwed up does this our view of of the pleading suggests that because the pla and my response it's it's it's a non issue guilt is determined later i don't know how plaintiff you know here's the thing as pointed out elected to swear the parties to a lawsuit are in charge of complain they have no idea first of all the complaints going to be filed and on what language so that could never be predicted when both henson and twin shorts entered into their contract and when maybe somebodies contract either the contract between henson it was a contract between henson and two insurers be modified to take that into consideration i don't think it's real world do you even understand the doing this you intentionally in not intentionally but you did something you're going to get that person is saying someone that you're responsible for that you have to be held accountable for their actions did something and that's the distinction i'm getting from counsel argument we'll take it in consideration but you still have the paragraph three which talks about the actions of twin shores to its agents or vinson employees i still think there's a possibility there's a potential as a possibility that the backs that are elicited during the course of discovery could establish a principle agency relationship between two each will shortz and henson now we don't know that for that for a fact but that potential that's part of that potential counsel talk about in terms of  what is the definition of potential that was referred to heavily in the reply brief on appeal i think that is part of that potential so if definite tensional exists for principal agency relationship then you've got a potential for a carious life building instruction and although the words a magic words vicarious liability are set forth in the complaint the potential exists there they stand on these pleadings and so therefore there should be coverage liability as potential is understood in case law concerning coverage and there would be virtually no case that wouldn't meet that standard that's virtually no standard at all instead of her duty to defend is admitted wrong but it's not so broad as to require nothing other than an allegation of that relationship what's required is an allegation of some kind of reason or responsibility or something for which one is blameless and that is what makes vicarious liability with respect to counsel suggestion that the parties couldn't have predicted how complaint would have been written actually that is what insurance companies and parties who purchase insurance are always in the business of doing is determining what claims are possible and what claims are to be covered and it's not myopic and it's not narrow to limit the coverage to the coverage that is provided for and stated in the policy this policy for securely with respect to the additional insured indorsement endorsement provides that the additional insured is to be sure and is to be covered but only for vicarious liability it's very clear in using that language by carious liability that is imputed from the actions of the named sure so that the the coverage that is provided is is still covered the coverage that is provided to the named insure the coverage follows the liability in some cases it follows the liability of the named insured to the additional insured in those cases in which underlying plaintiff's claim make claims that the additional insur responsible for something the named insured did or failed you that's vicarious liability that's what the policy explicitly does cover not in any myopic or narrow sense  is true that guilt is to be determined later guilt if that sort of guilt is to be determined it is determined is found by a jury that is something that is for it is relevant to the duty to indemnify and that again is kind of the distinction between the notion of potential and the notion of until some of the recent cases dealing with additional sure indorsements the notion of being something being potential in a complaint that are potentially covered and therefore  by the notion of potential is relevant to insurance coverage in the sense that it only has to be alleged and therefore potentially group in this case the notion of vicarious liability is not even potential the distinction of guilt is a key to that understanding and the allegation that to ensure it wasn't fact guilty of doing something or failing to do all the several things that are alleged in that paragraph five sets it apart from vicarious liability surely is directly alleged to have committed these negligent by lation zone of duty but that is very different from the notion of being legally responsible for something that it didn't do that someone else did and yet it's