five where these reinsurance treaties adopted would be you saying executed or adopted actually written well when when did these parties enter into the one nine hundred eighty one and eighty two the construction of the service a super clause violated only law in that you have to look at the intent and purpose of the provision the service to cause is named a service to service to cause only applies to foreign reinsurers on the rest it does not apply to any domestic creatures case law has determined has found that the service is a closet nothing more than what it has t consent to jurisdiction by foreign i mean i'm not sure what you mean about castell i have four circuits that have interpreted this very language that all four of them held that it waives the right holding that it does not affect i'm not aware of what but if we have there are decisions saying that this particular language does weigh more but their subsequent decisions rather do normally well sure the interest of the institution of contract to apply novel understanding years later that's what i'm trying to figure out whether on the day these agreements were entered into the what happened before something was entered into you really need to answer before rather than answering what happened after i really know the difference between before and after and my answer is i don't know however at the time the services two clause of the dotted in the region treaties there was no arbitration provision that arbitration provision was adopted later and was uncertain of the policy when you have the arbitration provision competing with the form selection clause you have an ambiguity and that ambiguity cannot give rise to a clear and unequivocal right to remove a waiver of the right to remove two competing for one arbitration the other one i guess in any court in th this district this bar said that for white collar for the waiver of the right to remove the waiver s we clear and unequivocal other cases in this district said the same thing you are not in this district you are in the united states court of appeal least the forty's i don't want to go back any further than that and employed as a matter of regulatory obligation in just about every state in the country as a kid as a condition that  change the language and do something else well it is it's especially true given the regulatory overlay here and in fact that you know these classes that are effectively are required by state insurance regulators to be a part of reinsurance treaties with undertaking a fairly massive exercise to codified the rules for approving reinsurance treaties and paying the special attention to what what traditional wording existed in that result in a thing called the model credit for rape or predatory insurance model act and credit insurance model regulation which i think as we pointed out in our brief after all the fun happened here has been codified in illinois so this bill it is important to the business of insurance that parties know what they're getting with these classes and that they know how their they're going to be to handle by the courts and that's part of the significance of this case i'd like to move over to just a couple of other points mr dunne seems and a couple of the courts have fallen for as well is as assuming that in arbitration clause creates a choice of form it does not it creates a choice of procedure when you write an arbitration clause you do not know who is going to be making the decision you do not know where it is going to be made unless you include specific language but most importantly you do not know if the if the decision the arbitrators will be enforceable until you take that award to going to need to be availed of if the parties can't as we have had issues with with this particular block of this mess if the parties can agree on whether or not arbitration should occur if the parties can't agree on how arbitration should be arranged or if after the arbitration has taken place that the parties do not agree that the that the arbitration award should be enforced  this court has a history in holding that a clause that specifies merely a set of definitions by which a forum will be designated is effective is a domicile or the home the home state of whoever happened on the receive a bill in question but at the time the dispute arose so at the time the parties signed the contract it was one company and it was domiciled in one place but by the time the contract  gun into default and the contract party sought to enforce the agreement it was someone else in the case that moved to a completely different part of the country for the debtor in that case complained that that's kind of hundre why would a party agree to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of some court to be determined later and this court held in effect that why really didn't matter that's what they said and that there's nothing inherently unfair in it here what the judge say st eve very well laid out in her opinion the parties agreed that venue would lie in place selected by the reinsured or and or insured party and that after that venue was selected the reinsurer would go to and take all steps necessary to subject itself to the jurisdiction abide by the decision of that court so it's a two step process that she pointed out it's not just a choice of a format which in which a case may be brought once the re insured has selected a form it is the only form in which the case mate persis finally we've got the the wording that there has found its way into the jurisprudence that such placed clauses need to be clear and unequivocal and your honor certainly correct that the supreme court has said that form form selection clauses are enforceable to the same extent as anything else they're not viewed with any kind of suspicion there's a term of a contract like any other couple other contract terms i have done another search and sought for case law that outside the and in fact the third circuit in the souter case which you cited in our brief very clearly explicating the argument that there's nothing about this clause that requires it to be subjected to any special burden but has as judge say need found this particular clause even if that were a requirement this particular clause is in fact clear and unequivocal and there's really no doubt about what it means it means that the case follows the choice of the reinsur guess your argument is it is it did because it's not a procedural issue it's actually a form selection as to this particular arbitration provision