but let me let me let me at least point you because we could go into a narrative of it but us i think it would be helpful perfect god to those claims i would say you have the burden of showing jurisdiction probably except that litigation expenses from the proceeds of insurance policies that is on that own by the episcopal church in south carolina according to the south carolina supreme  you have many into tis i assume that is how rocco situation this is a group that has sort of broken off and the question is that i have is in terms of your injuries so you now have an injury cases even in a factual took from our perspective their merits of it and what's going on under the underlying really this is a legal issue dealing with insurance type coverage and that's a whole other you could make this we have been engaged in litigation and lost property that they play with the aid of the insurance company a very minor paying their legal fees what do you make any cla that the insurance company somehow got secret information from you as a client people and gave it to these other people that they represented the client i do not know w well i don't understand they would get lawyers anyway why is it i just know you don't get your well the argument is they have contributed to our loss but i don't see how do you expect him to attention to this statement that's been repeated several times in text arguments we heard that they are not we are not a captive of the impossible church church insurance company is owned by the church pension fund one hundred percent that is documented in the record and so these continued allegations and assertions that we are a captive of  insurance company the difference is it has it is owned by a parent's company in this instance the church pension fund and their church pension fund and its affiliates are the only entities they can be provided insurance by their captives that's really all it means the duty to defend indemnity obligations those are the same regardless whether you're dealing with a captive insurer a mutual insurance company which is owned by its shareholders a publicly traded insurance company that anyone can give the duty to defend the indemnification obligations are no different the captive status determines pool from an underwriting perspective the policies be issued to in the st instance there is only one policy one policy you're at issue here which is judge when pointed out in the beginning or asked a question about at the beginning it is the two thousand and twelve policy  and currently were lower court found that they had no trust interest in all this property so certainly that would not get them out of the box if that lower court decision is a help but it is not necessarily t and twelve however as long as this litigation goes on the duty to bend does not end of the policy or if this litigation goes on another twenty years we're on the hook unfortunately to continue dieties there is no coverage under the insurance policy for that it is a duty to defend we always do need to defend the advertising injury claims that are brought as part of the counter claims by the di for providing a duty to defend that that is as long as what you look at to determine a duty to defend the allegations of the underlying complaint there are advertising injury allegations in the underlying counterclaims assertive by the dice these and then you look at the coverage our of our policy from two thousand and twelve which is in the right word the underlying case the disassociated perishes brought against church insurance company claims potentially covered under the commercial loudly part that's why it doesn't matter when or lose potentially covered very broadly it implicates the duty to defend and the policy further states that the insurance are treated separately so even if we didn't have individual policies here which i will get to in a moment even if the disassociated parishes and the diocese were all together on one policy the insurance company as long as the policy was issued while they were associated we are on the hook for defending that we're on the hook for defending everyone unfortunately and i think there's your extra you have a great trial lawyer it's just talk arm on one breath company would voluntarily undertake representing a providing insurance to both sides litigation certainly not and he you know we're stuck representing the providing defense costs for everybody  you know it's it is interesting you are here in an instance where you are defending or you are indicated you should pay you don't get many shares company places came into it normally you and your opponent would be only the same sad end it would be didn't owe a duty to defend it we couldn't obtain it declaratory judgment determination that we didn't owe it it doesn't matter we can't be panelized for doing more than we needed to it as long as there was a p stating that this trust relationship for the captive insurance laws or the corporate charter somehow in holds a restriction upon us that we have to pick the directly as the only entity that we will pay depends cost to be and to abandon the disassociated parishes and but now that we are in fact what you're doing going forward it's just for one piece of one year that you're representing that we get that's right but the litigation has had a life of you know almost i don't not expect decade a judgment i know you're very familiar with the life of the litigation and the circumstances so unfortunately we his in in the other side's argument the thought that if you are paying defense costs for one side there's somehow less money to pay defense costs for the other side is in some way hurt is that the real concern here there are not heard of we didn't tell them that they couldn't get all their defense costs were paying somebody else it was no injury other then the perceived injury that the litigation continues no conflict of interest because we issued separate policies we issued a policy of insurance a master policy to the diocese we issued separate individual policies this is uncontroverted in their records by and the disassociated into business was the was was the the parent church somehow involved in that settlement no where in the lawsuit that was brought will to last and through brought the disassociated parishes brought a l e but that motion was denied and actually mr pitts deals a client the diocese opposed bringing the disassociated pierces in his client's position was that they should stay out his fight settlement agreement as a basis for your duty to defend the only the only basis for this was the allegations about you need to defend there's never been any indemnity here so there was allegations that settle it and my question at that point is now as the insurance company even if the contract didn't if they can make a case to say you should be doing the contract you've settled and say out and we'll and that's not been challenge so i don't i'm trying to understand at least from your perspective why doesn't that duty arise from the settlement agreement that you may be to defend because the basis was the insurance polic he found that there was no standing for any of the four claims alleged because there was a policy that arguably provided coverage all we're doing is reimbursing defense costs and their diocese does not have allegations they allege that the trust relationship and the corporate charter and captive insurance laws are what you get them the rights that they are alleging the captive insurance laws are not a matter of discovery those can be really spree search without discovery the corporate charter is already a record in the case so you don't need any discovery as to that and a trust relationship does not get one insured the ability to tell its insurance company not to insure somebody else and provide a defense to that in litigation if i'm insured by state farm and you're insured by state farm and your rear end me i can't call state farm and say i'll be better off in my lawsuit if you don't defend the driver be the you know judge who rear ended me i'll be better off i don't have sixty any i don't have a right regardless of any trust relationship i is a dress and the only thing we're doing in this lawsuit is to say we have standing to claim that they have hurt us by violating the law and the this case we have found out that not not only did the coverage not even and twenty dollars to zero as we were led to believe that it did we were led to believe that their coverage is has been renewed it is going on right now and we believe that we can prove them establish that that the existence of that coverage has damaged us and we let me ask you after the policy discontinues if you don't make an allegation that they still have coverage for the disassociated into tuesday you because they are not paying a premium no net you paying the premium right where we coverage under this existing policy in an ongoing litigation need if a duty to defend exist under two thousand and twelve is so the only thing that's a good test here is the payment of legal fees from the duty to defend where you are the fact that they continue to provide a renewal coverage i'm i'm missing that because what i what i understand is the duty to defend arises in the two thousand and twelve and that's a continuing obligation whether having you here we wish we were in richmond we get down shake your hand but can't do that