but not necessarily with the knowledge that it would result in harm but that's exactly the same theory in so that it took to be willful be willfully done you have to do something actually result but you had to know that what you were doing was wrong it is what you do is wrong and you knew it was wrong is the same standard as you now as under the law in massachusetts in doing something unlawful and you know what's on offer you don't necessarily know that somebody is going to get harmed by it but that's malicious conduct and so all fine with the world full of the world violation of ninety three eight ninety three a liability is also excluded by the policies definition of cover damages in the end i would just note that the definition of covered binges is part of  ensuring agreement and so that something improving over the last fails within the ensuring agreement that's actually the burden of the models not the burden of the insurer so i think my brother misspoke there when he said multiple damages so the extent that the ninety three liabilities included the doubling of the damages would be the doubling of the base ninety three a damages plus the doubling of the twenty thousand dollars in negligence that's out  and then in addition there was the order of attorney's fees and the policies get an issue of damages also excluded and civil sanctions or civil penalties  because the award of attorney's fees is an exception to the american rule and it is an exception that is intended to punish her in ball flies as a civil sanction liability and again the district court correctly determined that any underlying action movie expressly asserted that the twenty thousand dollars was clear that the policy doesn't cover the liabilities that resulted in the underlying mansion and so the net puts them that puts the defendants in the position of having to argue bed we should be we should be able to  and i think the consumer fine before it says it may not cover something that it actually looks to claim he considers it and compares it to the policy just doesn't arbitrarily throw off these things so in the chronology is you have a non client sue lamont and his klein your client looks at that complaint and writes a reservation of all rights writers time goes by the cr then files a claim against them on ever send any reservation of writes a letter regarding those claims you want us to presume as a matter of law that no modern assume that the reservation rights letters you sent regarding the claims of the non client would expressly says you're paul seeing as an exclusion in a definite and a definition of damages for certain types of liability and talking about excluding ninety three eight claims in the willful conduct you're talking about having to find malice these are the sort of exclusions we're talking about you've got a claim by a non client for whom there could be the entirely plausible motive that he misled the known client because he's trying to help his client close the deal on the claim by the client go against him that could not conceivably be a motive but motive would be much more regularly be some different type of motive the existence of this burial ground in syria linesmen i want to ask you a question about that show it is ignored position that that in the world of professional liability insurance in his son reasonable for a covered professional to think that there would be there might be a business reason why his insurer would cover him for client complaints even though the same exclusion or non coverage might apply as in the case of a third party second reservation of rights letter may be unwarranted i think the better way for me to explain it is that if there is one set of facts if one claim that is subject reservation rights whether or not the second preservation of element of a sagal you know even you know even if you're using that as a defense to move to the crime are on but you know but it is true that and it sure does have to pay one position or the other thank you very much