there must be a book where you can find a complaint or you can change names dates and and locations and have a last reason i say that just as right you asked about the allegations here paragraph three does not does not suggest that der dell was not free to do the work it was contracted to do in its own way but that's how the cork in pekin versus roebuck looked at in his in his ruling and he also said there was no conflict and he also said he could look at the complaint and the third party complaint and the sub contract now this court could walk up what it wants before th not the architect of you can't just look at those allegations ok then because we lawyers we can talk of the other side of a mob of the same time but look at my are against rebel and if you look at the allegations of the third party provide insurance but i want to protect all one against the consequences of her death was negligence there is no intention expressed in the subcontracting or in any pleading in this record there is no intention in any of those areas read those in the light of the language of the endorsements of the policy you can't say you just have to follow probably certainly here in each case it's somewhat different factually each case as to the law should negligence despite being pointless itself that having been said the complaint is the basis for finding that there should be no duty to defend the policy is not designed to cover someone else's like many insurance coverage cases so this appeal does not turn on the interpretation of some esoteric good contract provision it provides on some of those fundamental principles of insurance law in illinois and i'm talking about the maxims of insurance law the very basis of all insurance law no noise oh it's a start with an easy one hurting me the underlying complaint and insurance policy must be liberally construed in favor of the insured i think we've all heard that seen that in hundreds of research shows here's another one any provision in a policy that limits or excludes coverage must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and against the insured i'm a twenty years insurance defense and i've had these thrown at you for almost every case and you have no idea which which relish  dissent is remarkable because she didn't go on and on no through through an examination of the flaws of this analysis or that analysis she didn't reenter the contract what she did was she cited a basic fundamental rule of insurance law she said and it sure may refuse to defend only if the allegations in the under court underlying complaint precluded any possibility of coverage gist of what she said that's all she said homer holmes the case that we rely on primarily in our case when you go through that what they're reliable with that in every step of their of that court's analysis they are relying on fundamental principles of insurance law now he can argues that bills complaint contains no outright allegations of vicarious liability on the part of color and therefore it has no duty to do that that's taking a look at the actual theories of law that are raised in that complaint not be the actual facts not the facts that can be drawn from no no attorney her bills attorney bills attorney has one one one one of focus to recover as much as possible is he can forty two to compensate him for his injury he doesn't of forward that process he doesn't pursue the process by saying that there are other people that are negligent but i'm not suing them that is matter of fact draws away from it now another point of the law is that the court can look was third party complaint alleges the color of the dirt all was entirely responsible for this accident a jury could believe that they could find her dell is entirely one hundred percent reliable for this accident and yet polunin could still be held liable why because of section four fourteen of the restated second reports with which states that if cohen exerts some degree of control i'm not saying that they control the work some degree of control than they are right koreas we're liable and that is a possibility that could occur the jury put the file the durtal was one hundred percent responsible and if it does some measure of control it doesn't say that to rebel is helpless it cannot do the work in its own way it says that it is not entirely able to do the work in its own in the in its own fashion entirely free in the underlying complaint we have an allegation that calling it designated methods by which you the work should be done no that's not a suggestion that's not against that's not  work you're going beyond supervision you're going beyond scheduling the work is beyond saying the work must stop it or which starred you're saying that you have to do it in a particular manner and i'm going to tell you what that matter is and it doesn't have to be all of the work it just has to be some portion of the work if you follow that durgo was to any extent it was it was not entirely free to do the work in its own way then you directed designated the methods by which the work should be done and that's all we need in this court as a getting back to the fundamental principles of the shortest law this court must construe the underlying complain then the policy liberally in favor of the insurers oh why wouldn't it follow that it of that a party from states that the it were is alleged the party designates how work should be done that is entirely then i am not imagine your honor at any circumstances were a person filing a third party complaint would make such allegations the because to do so would be liable and that's all we need is a possibility i believe that there are certain provisions in there that can be arguably supporter base as well as the indemnity agreement but i believe that on a fundamental basis the hills complaint standing alone is sufficient to confer like areas like poten aspect of the work that's not what her here and that's not what is alleged here and that's also contrary because he also said look the for a party complaint it's not there he says look at the sub contract it's not there article  and he was asked wise by two members of this panel were they are third party compliant and he couldn't tell you they're not there that's not their theory they're seeking contributions so they're saying as between the two of us you're more liable than we are