so i can gauge i would like to save some time for a bubble and so i said i would i'm asking that the court kind of place in terms of the time when we have another case following this in generally we give everybody the whole case conveyor designing these these things in sells them and it has designs them in the past it did to include certain respects just containing parts and these were small elements small parts of the system and it's important to know that you see did not rain effects are these products for independent or direct so in any respect they were exclusively for use place fifty about projects that had been concluded obviously before an eight hundred eighty three eighty four that's when the shift was made so that's a long time you know as far as the records show but but the point is well the layout of the customer's plant you could handle a huge plant you could have a small electric company the design he had to fit within the building that the customer had and so it was custom like if it was a high from our perspective no legal rights until we design these products it would take years sometimes to design these systems and then sent them out into the world for manufacturing one unit at a guy some person some record dropped the thing or a rift at the runway or tilted it the wrong way there was something that happened to the container that had the mercury the customer created spill here we're not talking about it here we're talking about any reference to what they say that the reservation is subject to the appropriate limitations of liability is there any case that says the insurance company has to do more than the at to guy about the way in the stuff and that was the first time it was fully articulated i think if you look at the original complaint the paragraph or in the last sentence there talks about the fact that we believe based or they didn't make the same glue the contract why didn't you include the claim in the complaint there wasn't anything preventing you from doing that was there well there was nothing preventing us i think mean you dead at the time and this is the manufacturer i ask you what are they having to do how do you answer mr levin stands argument all of these systems are individually designed and so it's it's the design of a particular system that the limits of the policy supplying that that's the first thing but the second thing is if we're going to turn and you have to turn to the lawyer with actors and the point is that they had those last runs but for what they filed of original a different view it's and that's one of the allegations of the very first complaint so there's no mistake that they already had the information with respect to this issue that they raised only after someone's judgment the initial complaint though her later the question of my breach of contract in summary judgment is that one occurrence or is a multiple occurrence as that was the original complaint and that's what judge and i'm sorry that's what the judge agreed upon the amendment that they are seeking same exact a true and this there's been no debate that there's amongst the parties that there's an impact with respect to any differing language used about the stimulus thing earlier on i mean just that just very briefly we had less policies in this amendment the resolution of rights letters those they had the last front those they had and some internal emails travelers that's what came out during discovery but that didn't change anything all this internal e mail showed is that there thousand and they say oh wait wait a minute hold the work we're changing our mind we're doing something we're doing it differently in the would anybody have known they were going to do that well if the first there's another complicating factor here which is the trailers suggestion or statement or any piece of evidence after the traverse said we are taking you multiple occurrence position they never took a position that they think they didn't take that position so that it can be really it years later on but it's more importantly it's it was right after summary judgment was entered against you see see even if you see claims that it needed the materials produced  i just want to know what you what you think that sentence means and i'm going to ask him the same question environment that's been created by the policy holder it's this it's like a bashing clause in certain respects but it relates to here the condition was this pesticide was being put out as a pattern and so it included the market that's the same general condition that to me is right it was first  typical of language that is in many general liability policies and it was in the ones that with were located and it was included in the stipulation because it's part of the typical definition policy language it occurs in the policies that were located right so it's not true re the risk it's the same definitional language with respect to the term occurrence which we believe supports our argument here with respect to the one has one occurrence its language that a bad grades on web can be deemed to be part of this singular cause it's the general conditions there i mean maybe i'm missing your honour's point as to its particular i don't think it's more or significant by virtue of the fact that it's in a stipulation is i wouldn't say that it's the stipulation was intended to capture face the totality of the system it's great and so you have to fill in the blanks right right right that would it further a situation where you really clearly they strategically and tactically choose what the areas they want in their complaint and they chose for strategic and strategic and tactical purposes now to include a claim that was just to stop  says we're not going to argue about the merits we're just going to argue a procedural issue rather than out there was a way for him to stop well that's a wholly different claim that's about the relationship between the parties and and all these other things think chose not to put those would have been the objects of discovery throughout the pendency of discovery in the case they weren't they weren't it was there was some very crude saree examination about the reservation of rights letters did you get i can't don't know if i did i can't say i didn't i mean that was the nature of the discovery really that related to these types of issues and so now we should go back start over depose some of these same people and some additional people i don't think that that's the way the trial court wanted to run his quote and i think he has the discretion and he has to it's a very very high standard with respect to abuse of discretion to undermine the way he decided to structure this case and maybe if this were a close class if there was only run factor prejudice and i'm not conceding that factor but if that was the only factor i might find this to be a little bit more pointed than the issue but in fact just the fact that they had everything they we needed to make this claim the time when it wasn't timely they had any opportunities to amend we invited them to amend by that footnote in our summary judgment they chose not to that was the consequence that's a very very high standard and i don't think those two standards should be mixed anything else thank you four or five of those years they were discussing us behind our backs and they have been drafted in two thousand i have a letter to tell us that this is their position in the navy and we discovered dead in discovery in their really went to court for several times a real period of months and said i'm going to do is some going to do this didn't do it and then finally did in the spring crowd said close enough because these are net b it's all it's a different plane with a different plane relit west side much the same facts and many of the same issues in the relationships that it was at least into there and i would say more than that in paragraph fourteen of our original bad yes this is the least aggressor is a situation where there's a letter it talks about reserving certain rights he doesn't hit the nail on the head and they say you've got to deal fairly with your insured and tell them what idiots you