complaint immediately they had plenty of opportunity to defend once they run through the up a checklist state farm has either got to defend under a reservation of rights or file a declared tort through to raise what it calls its first party third party defense  with then they can stay five did not have to file an action but alcove is so clear that even if you've got i can use it if i can say it this way no post says in other cases say even if state farm knows that the complaint is ascertain that there is no house at least that's what your opponents will claim i don't frankly at this juncture feel that way because i think marie is definitely an assured ah and feel and i think if that the the case to tell that the insurance carrier can look to a third party complaint i can understand the logic of it because a third party complaint is the pleading in the case that has been given to us to the insurance company that i thought time this is not a third party complaint case this is a case where there's the so called first party claim the first party claim being when the insurer looks to the insurance company to pay for the property and a third party complaint i'm sorry third party claim is so so that extension of alcohol to allow an insurance company to consider what you know third party complaint should not come into play here and and the court may disagree as soon as i have i'm able to say the magic words the insurance company is relying upon i'll stick solution to avoid coverage that brings it smack with a knock off because all the facts that they talk about are facts that they used to establish whether or not state farm school filled its obligation under alcohol in elko said it's not it's not a question of fairness in the state farm's brief went to the question of well it's not fair for us to have this information and not be able to use it well the whole point is the fact that you have information doesn't necessarily mean it's the right information and they put a burden on the insurance companies to go to court and get this resolved quickly and the difference when they don't do it is that when the insurance company does not provide coverage as w the problem not a problem that is difficulty is state farm switch their positions here they thought that he was a resident of the household immediately after the fire and they pretty thirty or their adjusters made it because he lived in his grandmother's house how could he not be a member of the household envision this is one house they were on and then they switched one later run when the first party claim was made and the question is can a first party claim by the grandmother not by antoinette the mother and i i think that makes a difference or they keep saying the claim was planted that was made by the grandmother the shirt not by the mother in the first party claim automatically preclude a third party claim and went cooper there justice that no that doesn't if we made a mistake in paying the first party claim all we do is get the money back yes there had been a knowing if if the grandmother in this case had knowingly made a first party claim and instead and let's assume the grandmother was a lawyer and knew what it meant to make a first party claim and knew what it meant to be a resident in the household for policy purposes they went to the insurance company to say i understand that my son he i grieve he lives with me he was part of a familial unit died just like  about whether the grandmother intended the waiver to sing i think the court has to keep in mind the first party claim and the third party claim where they're at the same time at that point state farm where they were served this complaint had to know there was some confusion at that least between the family as to what was the what the son status was and should have done a further investigation but they didn't do that and that's why i think that's why we have now put to avoid a situation where the insurance company thinks it has data this is the proposition of that you are raising your seriously oh challenge the structure imposed on the earth that your honor this is not a sweeping problem that my opponent would make it out to be this is a very limited discreet and unique set of circumstances where you have the same players in a first party claim taking positions and having status as defined for purposes  plea did the jury hear that she's just an old lady doing what she's told by the carrier is this a sure winner in front of the jury on that issue and even if there were is that enough cases have now institutions but your honor those but those cases were built on the first premise of these would be traditional third party actions in the sense that it be a stranger to the contract coming in and filing a claim against the insured and those allegations when the party and notice that they have to defend she gets a judgment against or won something should they happen before there to protect her and that's what i think our justice is trying to say that complaint was filed in december of zero six almost two years to the day of the fire and that complaint was not tendered to state farm by marie named insured but it was rather forwarded by her daughter's counsel her daughter was serving as administrator of the estate of the son who had perished in the fire that was forwarded to stay from direct stay farm immediately conducted a traditional third party investigation which necessarily involves reviewing the first party claim because there was never che she claims here this was a single loss is the same loss the same players involved there i'm differently by the time the third party action is iowa and then state farm does what it normally does takes the insurance recorded statement it i appreciate they are with respect to the going back to the tiny judgement from amended complaint to judgement merely free months elapsed if they even if they from a got a dec action i probably would not have been resolved by that time i would still be sitting here saying farm relied on information that it did not just get this information it was given this information by its insurance state farm has a reasonable expectation to expect its insurance to tell it the truth and for its reach able to rely on the statements given by what the truth apartment tenants and the grim the name insured claims rental income from actually made a loss for rental income because of the fire explained that there was the grandson and his friend lived in the basement and mother and the daughter named insured and her daughter lived on the main floor that state farm immediately identified the friend as not being entitled to first party coverage because he was not a resident relative however the grandson is a resident  test the evidence is that state farm communicated this to the named insured and or her daughter but both were aware that they were being covered because their resident relatives and that the the friend was not the friend was not a resident relative and so received no no first party coverage they go forward on this and state farm does not tell them what to do state farm refers gives them context to the two for purposes of the the property that is lost it's not a restoration company that is any way associated with a farm they work independently with that company they identify every single i don't personally i don't that that was lost or destroyed in that fire that includes the screens on the property antoinette i cool of the mother worked vigorously to make sure that every item of her son's property in the basement was included and when she disputed the values assigned by state farm and part of the first party claim state farm for the death of the sun state farm really had every reason to rely on a accepting first priority benefits and whatever else she said and have her testify she made a mistake this was not a judicial admission this was simply an admission well i think your question assumes that first party and their party coverage are the same anybody brought up the issue of it but the case law he sides whether you were or were you arrested them on the basis of the intent of both the a victim and it's a subtle distinction how the grandmother regarded or how the mother regarded where the grandson lived whether he was a part of simply coming for visits when he at his heels twice a week or whatever  in the house to show that he intended to have his meals or or whether he needed big change you know those are the issues right now are they are are they going to stop the mother from suing so that you can if when she file suit borrow her on the basis of an a stoplight or you're going to try for summary judgment is there an issue of fact notwithstanding her admission i think you will find that there is that seems to be in the area here that somehow the grandmother is a stop because of her acceptance of first party benefits and i'm just questioning if you really  problem that you will have with the jury is that the cake that she eats is worth one percent of what she would otherwise be entitled to but this is not a question of election of coverage when you are and i think this is part of what we're dancing around here is once your status is defined once you are residents of the household or resident relative once you're in and named in short however you are defined as insured either by definition or straight out that status doesn't change for purposes the complaint comes in against the mother by the daughter for her son and it's a little confusing and state farm has known no facts other than the this is the complaint and that they are then i would submit that there would be a question and stay from would have an obligation to do something has a potential for coverage could exist however because of the first party claim and because it's because of the first party claim you these facts are so unique i have not been able to come across a case similar to it but because of the first party claim and because of the status that was defined as part of the first party claim that status carries forward for any and anything else coming arising from that very same loss and there is no equity in requiring state farm or preventing this what might it is trying to do is use the stoppel to create coverage where it doesn't exist and uses happel to prevent reaching the actual merits of the of the case there is no equity to be done to but your reach coverage under the second part of the policies section two the third party liability side of the policy and she's really just trying to have both sides she's trying to be both a resident relative for purposes of the first party claim and then the and not resident relative for the first party point let me just turn the tables just a little bit state farm made a decision or determination rather on the two days after the fire that the the friend was not a resident relative even though he lived in the house and contribute to his household expenses and everything that a normal household family unit would do he's not a resident relative so he did not qualify as an insurer by definition for purposes of first party coverage had that individual filed suit against marina named insured state farm could not be sitting here today and say oh wait there's a question of there he's a resident relative and he's excluded from cannot take a different position now but yes plaintiffs the state is trying to take the very opposite position that she took for purposes of the first party claim and i want to make it clear that it's not who made the claim yes the claim was presented on behalf of marie the named insured however everyone who benefited from the claim was an insured by definition that would be the daughter they have a son aid within the coverage provisions of the policy and question is does the acceptance of first party benefits if we allow them do sure to look at to look at that does  cannot come within the average provisions well it has to be for this law so i'm looking at this case is unique set of circumstances in in the traditional case where you have you don't have a first party claim that is part of the third party claim by virtue of the fact that these are still the same lot it was never a look it was the same law it was the same plane it's the same lots so in those circumstances now if you have the same players filing a claim against each other named insured against insurance by definition so they can't do so his hypothetical so getting outside the wrong he's using help when it doesn't apply doesn't apply because there is no potential for coverage here for the reasons we've been talking about there can be never be a potential for status that they that was her neck i'm going to cut you off i'm going to because i'm looking out here and seeing two other cases and i think we all know the facts and the mark here pretty well