that southwest called rock one of the defendants in the action of the two defendants at a commercial liability policy in effect between march ninety seven and march ninety eight and with calvert insurance and that was the first time that we discovered that so i sent a demand on this policy or not the central one of the central issues that judge jones and just reported las vegas had relied on i believe was that what standing didn't stir cans or have against this policy so many years later after the events in question  the core of the case was october one thousand nine hundred seven a real estate transaction between mr kessler and robert ford in his company south was called rock a deal that went bad and ultimately resulted in years of litigation but that was the core foundation of why we're even here and whether or not calvert has any liability in this in this matter was that breach of contract that occurred in one thousand nine hundred seventy breach which has been agreed to in a sense by the district court in las vegas by the state court search to find cases all over the west and i have arizona cases california cases nevada did not have a lot of cases on this and our position is that my kinzler did not have a right to value in this case until he got that the judgment and with that right to you he then value to this policy until the plane that he thought judgement which was still years later unfortunately i never knew this happened when i sent that letter to calvert insurance that was the first time this time they heard about it they probably freaked out there's a ten million dollars judgment and what are we going to do and i certainly understand the position but if we say the sound was called rock failed which they did they failed miserably and did not at all notify calvert hey we got this lawsuit going on you guys should know about there could be a potential claim south was called rock never were no hard assets for me to go after and try to collect on all we had left was the discovery that hey there's a commercial either there have been some way to resurrect the bankruptcy by in voluntarily forcing southwest into it and claiming as a as a creditor that this is an asset that about whether maybe this policy would apply and we found out there was a coverage period that includes the window of time when the parties actually contract it which is up to ninety seven i know judge jones in the district court said look you can't even if you've got a claim you and we were going on that with our counterpoints and then essential mr ford and south was called rock drive the case out in their bankruptcy filings and here we are two thousand and three we finally got to leave all judgment against them but we will contend for purposes of determining coverage that being mr kessler has no right to bring a direct action against calvin insurance company he has no spine and from the insurer to bring an action under the policy there is no statute committing such opinion ninety six nevada two forty three now that a supreme court opinion even more important is the ninth circuit decision farmers found versus kennedy which had the exact same situation as we have here a third party agreement and the ninth circuit said you're incorrect you take the policy as it stands if you are a third party beneficiary or if you have an assignment under the policy and that's just it is  taking the five and a half year delay that we have from when mr kinzler served his complaint against covers insured is as or as a matter of law and reasonable because the post requires before you can bring an action against the company before you can have even potential coverage you have to provide reasonable prejudice and that is supported in all the cases that the s b corporation versus hartford case which came out of this circuit recognized and the prejudice would be simply that it had no potentially be found to be covered under coverage part b to the cover policy today i heard mr converse counsel say that the basis for why he's here is a breach of contract during the policy period but yet that's not what the polls he provides coverage for the coverage part that apparently he was seeking coverage for prosecution a personal injury of fans that must ninety eight this was trying to say in my opening remarks is that the whole reason for this case being the existence of it was the breach of contract that occurred in october ninety seven the policy itself does not provide coverage for breach of contract we're not here are claiming breach  contract that says there's no way i can get you out the policy and it's the person who the malicious prosecution but what i'm trying to focus the court on is that the our whole reason for being was because of what happened in october ninety seven i miss them and that's everything sort of flows from that and that's where i'm coming from