evidence to the district court to create a tribal issue a fact that there was a plain conflict of interest between mr for born and c given she was counsel in this case well is it your position that anytime there's an allegation of intentional conduct by an insured that he or she automatically is in title to a separate counsel even when there's no reservation of rights by the insurance company  that's not my position in every case i think in this case in particular because there was also eagles alter ego theory alleged against mr for more and that and of itself created sufficient conflict for him to be as much money as they can on their policies they're going to be cautious they're going to fight cases as they did here mr horn was told by mr myers that there was a conflict of interest and you should get your own attorney mr horn did that he hired mr angle think that if the lawyer who's handling the case looks at it and says you know there's a conflict here and we're going to have to deal with it maybe that's not the end all improving dispositive that there is a conflict that certainly creates a tribal issue that there was a conflict  fact is this is the is it an objective or subjective test well i think you have to look at the facts and i suppose you could say it's a bit of each but if you're like me can't imagine that it could ever be like well i just don't have faith in this war so i get another lawyer no no and we're not objective i don't i mean and there is a subjective component in this case i think that there is but there was a real threat here of personal liability for mr horn and goes to the ethical dilemma that a lawyer is presented with when they have to defend someone and another defendant in a situation like this this is something that mr meyers recognized and raised as an issue and he may say now sufficient sufficient evidence of a tribal issue that there was a real conflict here and i think that the previous case that we cited and i'll reply agree with supports our position that we should he should have been provided to for counsel and assets i have no further comments i'd like to state times or the bounce yes thank you so much expense and mr meyers will cooperate the letter that mr myers wrote later on that's been referred to several times by the appellant can be found at your record at page three hundred sixty five it state the dissolved corporation it might appear to a jury that if the same lawyer is representing both contractors barricade service and server boring that both must be the alter ego of each other therefore it might be necessary to appoint separate counsel for m or contractor vericut service prior to trial one of the things that safeco gets in exchange for waiting all of its potential coverage positions is to get the right to control the defense and it does not have to appoint him as counsel mr mi letter makes very clear that this is being discussed in the context of trial strategy it's not an actual conflict if the court will look at dynamics concept versus truck and james five court aeration court in those cases has said that you cannot simply assume that an attorney is going to violate any ethical duty and there is no evidence here that mr meyer was going to violate any ethical duty he was perfectly distance returns are because malice requires intentional conduct because of the statute twenty eight sixteen if there's the finding of intentional conduct but compensatory damages are awarded on that intentional conduct and the insurance company has not reserved its right it is obligated to pay if that intentional conduct result in a punitive damages verdict it's dr charlie prohibited from paying  have to be compensatory or the punitive damage verdict would get struck i can't imagine any case where a jury would come back and say no actual no compensatory but we're checking you for punitive if you get one dollar  i just have a few final comments briefly thank you so much i think you know mr warren paid his insurance premiums for over twenty years and when the chips are down he's told by the sakal lawyer you've got a conflict he acts on it and he's in effect punished by staker for doing so they start writing writing him threatening letters we're going to hold you responsible we're going to get reimbursement from you this was a very scary time for mr horn and i think especially after that occurred he's not going to feel comfortable with mr meyers were not saying this to miers was going to act appropriately but he was certainly faced with a very uncomfortable dilemma in that regard and he recognized it and he brought it up to the insurance company and he kept doing that in his letters he's got to be careful he says at the time this occurred he still works for seiko he still gets that co work and i would want to be in his position but i think we have pretty presented enough insured and conflicts arise it's to prevent that sort of thing from happening and this is exactly what happened in this case so i think at the very least mr born with the title to separate counsel and to be reimbursed for