opportunity to float out a transparent attempt to plead into insurance this is not an indictment on a alternative or hypothetical pleading there was no attempt by winkler in his amendment had negligent manner so it's a lead into insurance coverage because the same in count one has been described as an intentional act with the intention are the only difference in these allegations is in this started out as a complaint which unmistakably put an intentional act with an intent to harm on behalf of both actors watchman and damage in response to the insurance company's position suspect and the allegations when you take the labels off still speak to a net and intentional act with an intentional result there is no insurance co all the defendants ar negative they say if you can versus wilson the supreme court of illinois you have to look at the that's raised by an insurer in this type of a case for the fact if you can versus was in the supreme court bush had a intentional act exclusion that had a exception to the exclusion then you can't argue what the other side is restaurant or have we say that because the supreme court was very explicit about where it was going with the self defense exception b but certainly danner is driving and being beaten with a golf club and not be regarded as self defense to a neighbor coming on to the property to get a baseball nor the other person in this fray who comes out of the house sees the fight and joins us by kicking and beating winkler could deck be considered self defense based on the allegations where it is it is what the defendants say stretches the imagination what what taken that there is new evidence but in response to the complaint the kneejerk reaction of a transparent attempt to clean up the coverage says not only was it intentional adelir didn't get out of his truck and get a golf club from the back of the that that should show us that the golf club use was intentional and therefore or driving that truck was also he told the truckers that true when word got out of the truck the allegations are one  which one court said to call it negligence is proceeding which another court said stretches the imagination which the fifth district said in more than one cases those cases are like sexual assault cases or a stabbing and something that clearly possibility that there's more involved than just the allegations of the initial t be negligent driving there can be reckless driving it doesn't have to be intentional whether or not it was intentional is something that has to be determined in trial court and not in the if it was filed with the original answer your honor in the event or on november seventh of two thousand and seven and it raises these to the point you look at the counter claims and the allegations there that she was trying to break up the over cation she was not intentionally attacking when she was trying to step between them which we don't know that in the clear to our judgment case in order for the for the court to say that that american asked to decide such issues that are going to be should be decided in the trial court so they were just can arise out of the self defense they can just can rise out of washington but i guess i'm getting at you know in this case with wife that she intentionally goes over where this altercations occurring and does something intentional how does that rise to a negligen we don't know why but in order for the court to grant coverage in this case the court has to assume it was done for the reason mr turner says it's just it's possible that it was done because despite knowing that gee maybe there's something here that with these counterclaims and the other evidence the other things that i've done investigate this case maybe winter has a little bit of exposure here maybe i should include these matters maybe it's not a clear cut intentional act maybe there is some accidental activity going on here we don't know what went through this time and of course the court can take into account as  intentional action for the last minute try to act or no i understand that but those are cases where the act the initial act is clearly intentional in this case he wished lack is not clearly intentional could be negligent driv question whether was actually struck by the truck the underlying gutter line case you know they deny him and i know you can't in summary judgment can't just deny just rely on the on the  denial to recreate a fact issue but they have counterplay be affirmative defenses that have been filed that say that winter was not struck by the truck and i think you have to take into account all of those possibilities yes and even if she's indiscriminately hitting and kicking are those intentional acts that are excluded from the palace i don't think she's attending to hit and kick i guess is what i'm getting i think you have to look at  well we'll all go home today and look at our neighbors with a new one please know that i didn't mean that the negligence allegations and intentional act allegations you have nothing left the lawsuit started as an intentional act washing with an intent to harm clearly a mistake oblique not covered in response to the insurance compan or the homeowners policy issued by the same insurer in a case where there was a plague owner but it did not apply there was no coverage because there was no exception to the bodily injury excluded three ninety one philip thirty to the concept of walking beyond the four corners of the aisle seat in the white where there's a reason to do so and in that case there was because there was a self defense exception to the polyandry swoosh we do not have that cases where you think there would ever be a viable cause of action against the plant where it is so clear that it was nothing more than after the case is over the way the evidence violation i don't know are my function is to represent a carrier as to whether it has a duty to defend and i'm these allegations i submit to the court it doesn't hit if the court wants to make a shot across the power of the then be mindful that if you're going to plead intentional conduct and you're going to plead and attempt to harm you're going to plead yourself outside of insurance coverage you have to hope the defendant has the wherewithal to pay but if you're really want to get paid for the injuries you claim you