this is a case first question has to be asked what more could the appellant's have done in this case they clearly advice insurance company who was very company that they were going to merge with another firm effect of october first two thousand and seven they wanted from fleet prior coverage for that firm they did not want any award i'm sorry you should maybe try to water prior to when prior to the effective date of the merger which was october first two thousand and seven when the firm and mr gladstone will be added to the the continuing firm's claims made policy which was already in effect as of it's been renewed in july of two thousand and seven for the following year mr gladstone and his firm will not be added until october first two thousand and seven there was a request that he be added there was an advisement that it was intended that signature line which was signed would states they're all other terms in this i guess deuces specifically define the scope in the range of the new for coverage it's basically says all other provisions of the contract i understand i because i can answer that as i understand that the application is dated july twenty third two thousand and seven at that point it's an application you have an existing policy what's being applied for and it's being on path is being offered by westport is a couple of different things one you can have prior firm coverage right and no one has seen what that on talent that point there's no there was no prior foreign coverage indorsement on the policy at that point what there was was retroactive hates for people who join the firms as individuals and if you are right and what happens is a conscious decision and mr gladstone may not to asked zurich to cover him for a claim that he knew was sitting out there at the time i thought heard was therefore he did not with the broker essay on them and it says am i covering the last complete coverage i believe it's there and they say yes congratulations you've got it now you have the complete is not helpful because you know agree that it's only complete coverage within the terms of the policy we watch for as amended by the request and the worst of it when he signed that application the applications of for it has several different options say that that if you have a claim that arises from was related to a prior claim the date of that current claim will be defined by us as we met to the date of the first claim which is more than one claim limit are not in conflict with the complete coverage given in the prior firm indorsement which is not limited in any way and which could have been limited by the ensure as i've pointed out in the first american case what they very they're in the business of this my firm is not they could have said ok we want to make sure that this is clear we know what your expectations are at least we should know but we're going to do was say here's to the application that's what was done first american the insurance companies not helpless here they know what is wanted they know they have all the information they are the experts they can limit the policy may be some claim out there the second thing is is there an error in their objective test is a reasonable expectation that that event will ripen into an actual bligh myer and wilson responses to the collection action when a thousand and six and two thousand and seven with the complaint was filed in two thousand and nine the wilson answer says services were unprofessional well  perform services in an incompetent and they look at mariner in new jersey i mean that was clearly and was stated in the application that was just a throw away to try to get a settlement that the claim would be dropped by mr gladstone for money and it was and that was a conscious decision not to because he thought it was frivolous and sometimes attorneys do say you know the bigger the risk of any yes thing rising out of that in the end if mr boim are had come back later and made a out yet it's really my goal this morning to try and be as concise as possible to our plenty of time to respond to any questions or concerns the court may have it's also my goal though to avoid falling into a syndrome that i sometimes fall into and that is to tell simplify something that's complicated i'm sorry your honor no i mean i don't want to overly simplify something it's complicated but i also don't want to overly complicate something that is really you  application of familiar policy provisions under a number of cases that have applied it interpreted those pollak policy provisions this is a fairly straightforward application of the way the interrelated wron provisions and claims first made policy coverages work and i think that's how judge sharon saw it that despite this sort of circus complexity the issues were really quite straightforward and that's why we are hurt here urging that this morning you're not a read like it to be this that when mr gladstone joined as a from and from and that was done by this prior firm indorsement from the date that endorsement took effect from the moment it took the fact he had the same coverage as every other lawyer in the safe from firm no more and no less and the position that this being put forth in this appeal would be to give mr goldstein the mr gladstone more coverage than the other lawyers that these were apt there and that's why he wanted this extra insurance is not right he wanted coverage for his prior professional services prior representations prior occurrences which had not yet manifested or result in a climbing wall in his insurance application he described the hope wealthy conflict and informed westport that he was about to cancel his prior insurance doesn't that indicate that he was relying on the west i don't consider any future crimes i don't think so your honor if he i think what that indicates as judgment he pointed out in his questions earlier he had made a conscious decision not to report the initial bly meyer claim to his then insurer zurich he decided to bear the risk of that cla i'm sorry he thought they were frivolous yes he did that that that's what he says and i i accept that as accurate your honor but he acknowledged that it was a claim and when he made the decision which was entirely his prerogative to make not to report that claim to zurich when one does that one does that at his or her own peril he didn't tell zurich about what he acknowledged was a claim we now know that the subsequent claim made by mr wilson related back pursuant to the unambiguous provisions of the westport policy related back to that claim had he reported it says or ek that the later claim would have related back to the blind  freely chose not to report to zurich what the terms and pretty and conditions of the westport policy still apply it is still a policy that covers only claims first made during the period of that policy an are interrelated wrongful acts provision little laded acts arising out of the same services the same wrongful acts or series of wrongful acts relate back to the date on which the first such claim was ma ambiguous language in phrasing and in exceptional circumstances even when the literal meaning of the policy is plain is this a case of exceptional circumstances where the gladstone was expecting reasonably expected to be he discloses this there's no carve out in that endorsement that says well we're not going to provide covered with respect to that hopewell township matter what was on reasonable doubt his expectation of coverage with respect to any claim arising out of that i think you put your finger  on the the concept or are his that expectations have to be reasonable and i think the district court found and we certainly think he was correct to find that expectations of coverage for a claim which had already been made nasty once the insurance company had notice that this prior problem was lingering out there the company could have easily come with an endorsement this is we specifically we will not cover under our in related clause anything related to a related act clause and again your i would submit to you that there's there is no need to clarify the scope of that clause it's never been found and to give us by any court we pointed to a number of cases from this court from the appellate courts in new jersey around the country where interrelated wrongful acts clauses have been deemed an ambiguous and have been found to apply in circumstances very very much like this one if not circumstances where the relationship between the two claims were even more attenuated than what we have here mr gladstone and his name we're trying to get complete coverage and they disclose this and why wouldn't it be on reasonable for them to expect if it's going to be not covered don't tell us at the o they disclose that mr gladstone disclosed that and said he hadn't sought coverage for it from his prior insurer all the in all the prior firm indorsement does is make mr gladstone uninsured like every other attorney in the safe from he prior actions because i had i can only theorize that in general terms there are if there if something comes out of that application such as a threatened plan or a circumstance which may in the future lead a climb the company can analyze that analyze the risks maybe if it may factor into premium it may result in a specific provision or an exclusion it just goes to the overall underwriting analysis that an insure makes but it is not and in fact it is specifically match if you tell us about it cover for it no questions asked in fact the application specifically says this is not a substitute for notice so if it goes to the underwriting process but it doesn't negate or over right or wrong the provisions of the policy which include again the requirement that the policy only applies to claims first made in the policy period and the definition of claim which includes the concept of relating back under the interrelated wrongful acts clause your honor you noted the g i holdings case we cited the case in our papers as as one of i think a number of examples where courts have looked at these policies and found them on ambiguous there is again no authority to the contrary i realize that it's the appellant's position that the prior firm endorsement makes this case different from those other cases i respectfully submit it doesn't i know that the court in preparing for this has look at the language of that endorsement it's a very short it's very sweet it simply says that mr gladstone is added to the coverage provided under the policy to the say from a firm as your honor noted judgment the all other terms and conditions remain unchanged that's the reasonable way to approach this kind of situation i go back to the point i started is that mr  firm could not have reasonably expected that that short endorsement which expressly says it does not alter the terms and conditions of the policy could have given him more coverage different coverage broader coverage more expensive coverage than the rest of specific retroactive it's in their policies and therefore for them clearly any claims that arise during the coverage period if they join our firm if they are rows based on events that took place not covered and also one final thing this is a case where mr gladstone before he joined us from head of the substantial man to snyder he had fifteen or sixteen separate clients he should have known that based upon this one frivolous statement of neglect in a counter claim to all to a collection action that he was losing coverage according to westport if any of those other substantial parties he represented