think the critical issue to look at is the fact that still required to prove the merits of their case which they really can't do so in the absence of trial absolutely undermines the operation of will succeed because partners lawyers will never want the used to like to be a prevailing party under the sta is and i believe that there is no impact in this case because the cases are so obviously different in the first place in that you can produce case it was a case where the plane just rejected the offer whereas here we prevailing party and i'm saving one minute for rebuttal the the court of last if you need to be a prevailing party and i point to the statute here there is no prevailing party language in contrast party of here we have an offer of judgement which includes costs under the rule and cadets has admitted the costs are included in concert defined as including the tourney steves and so i don't believe also that you don't you need to prove your the twenty fifth you also asked for impact of cases from other jurisdictions there's certainly enough time for me to go through an entire list last friday however i did file a brief faxed it to the other parties and it's going to be served triggered as a result of the acceptance of the rule sixty eight offer that is before they can marry that is the point that this court made loud and clear in champion produce and that is true whether the substantive statute authorizing attorney fees authorizes them separately or as a part of hostile now while just an hour did not have the benefit of the champion produce decision yet before him when he when he ruled below she reached the same fundamental conclusion she refused to work availing party turning these two parties who had not prevail and he gets to the conclusion that the washington consumer protection  way they can do it under the bankruptcy situation so they've got everybody thinks there is in terms over here on this consumer protection act then the judge gets a letter from the carrier saying we don't cover it and based upon the letter the decision is made that's a factual decision or legal and factual decision and you have the district judge was going to rely on that completely over objection now how could we sustain such a thing through insurance wrong if i die it's certainly a matter they're entitled to challenge but in a different forum in a separate do live with that the sloan he's relying upon it not for coverage as she is relying on as to whether or not costs are going to be awarded why wouldn't that be something he has to decide suppose you have two letters and ones as you do and ones that if you don't i think judge can our was wise to decline were multiple causes of action pled the amount actually recovered the opera judgment was substantially less than the damages pled have to keep down that there was simply not enough evidence of the record to to enter a finding that they had prevailed on the c p a claim  and what we're left with is the facts in this case that are one hundred percent square with the fact have a chance to look at the other circus how they handle this issue this seems to be something of first impression for us i don't believe that it's a matter of first impression there there are some there's a range of opinions on this issue among the circuits however this court when it entered the decision chain to produce acknowledged that there was a circuit split in other words the fact that some other circuits have ruled differently on this to read the rule otherwise which would obviate the effect of rule sixty eight under the belt decision which is to encourage settlements because why would you accept a settlement avoid a trial on the merits and then have to go through this exercise of reproving your case when you already claim under the consumer protection act is not covered by the policy at that point and the judge is going to have that form what did what he what did the going to go after coverage it seems to me school's out well except for the fact that again if you read merrick excuse me urban and coaching and they knew some case if they did that can we the effect of that stipulation by saying there's no coverage what do you what action if any of the of color to take i think the appellant's took argued to the court that that is no more binding than our demand letter which says what our claim is worth the reason why is that clear law  judgment but still be watched so the argument that was raised was that it doesn't make any difference absolutely and you did not you did not challenge the position of the carrier that there was no coverage what your position is via understanding even if the carrier is right we with that is correct but we did challenge it through the briefs and what you did what we did challenge it through arguments in the briefs that are in a court of appeals well when that was just tax asking you what you of asking for the opportunity to challenge the position of that the carrier does not have coverage over the consumer protection act claim well and i think that it is attempting to stand a lot of coverage on its head it is the carriers affirmative duty  washington to seek to court him so if i understand your position you did not challenge the validity of the position the insurance carrier you said it was irrelevant and i think we'll have to agree to disagree because i believe it let me let me zero three three six zero zero six united states versus deep sea fisheries each side will have twenty minutes