that the dismissal of the case on the two grounds stated by judge hunt are wrong and the decision should be reimbursed for before the trial very specifically directed the apparent g e s and of course the underlying plaintiff to the policy proceeds of the st paul policy and it was made that we would  forbear any attempts to collect against the debtors beyond any insurance coverage available and to liquidate our claims against them now we were clearly that's where we supposed to look to for satisfaction  in the game that actually the vi policy was not discovered until after the good faith settlement proceedings was underway and then i discovered and i called to the attention of coun st paul saying look you shouldn't be treating us this way we have these agreements we have the greens to look to the policy we have the other agreement that we were dismissed the cross claim rather than go ahead with that in in the case in chief for a long trial and do all that we would have a chance to litigate this as a later date and now here by this good faith proceedings you're trying to  you're actually breaching these agreements and you're treating and not only do we have the contracts but our clients parents as of insurance policy with you now that's that's what so far is that  that last st paul because their policy is put on the line the policy is put that that we have to direct by other people around their people plaintiff everybody in the case stipulated that that's policy everybody except for well st paul's policy was put in their policy was that was the fund to look for claim we agreed that we would reef we could refile it within six months so when the six months was coming up the other case was under appeal to the nevada supreme court so there couldn't be you couldn't file suit against powerline at that time because that was on appeal so we filed against st paul to preserve that six months statute of limitations we got in st paul remove the federal court they made a motion to dismiss that judge probably the status conference we had the status conference and we were lining up a discovery schedule and then motions schedule and i announced at the status conference and i wanted to bring in power line at that point these very questions can you can you sue st paul alone like this was the first time i had a chance to bring powerline in and i preserve my statue limitations so i wanted to file an amended supplemental complaint and i file that with the court saint paul responded to that they injected to the filing that and then they filed a cross motion counter motion say this even if we had if we didn't have a direct action against st paul that would have been cured by the supplemental and then getting supplemental complaint when we got to that stage of that because we have now a power line in there and we can only go against powerline as to facts but we can't go against our assets so they both parties can arm and we feel that it was bad faith involved in the case  acted because the bankrupt corporation was basically out of this case once the trial was over because matter of fact they didn't even have witnesses that the trial but then it was ruling the adverse rulings and at this point in time once the supreme court had ruled then it was a matter of do we have a right contribution in indemnity which takes us to the next point and the whole and all the defense so we feel that and i think the law is very clear that that could not become rest judicata because we never had a chance to try those issues and that's where we think we should go and as i say  any thank you would bring against powerline that's the way the case was set up to go but before it went to the jury it was proposed that we stipulate to dismiss the cross claim and reserve the right to do it at a later well what they did we stipulated that we wouldn't proceed with it and then the case is over now if we proceeded with that it might well have changed the case with if we are focusing the allegations that we have against power insurance company which protect powerline in the that's what the bankruptcy speculation did it certainly didn't create any rights any ensure it in relationship between us and st paul for that reason there's no direct right of action against s in the examples that they give are defendants who are liable only by virtue of the fact that they were in the chain of distribution or they're liable only by virtue of the fact that there was an agency relationship between that defend defendant was actually negligent that's not what happened here here our jury looking at all the evidence specifically found that g s was twenty five percent of fault and in view of that finding  agreement for various reasons contrary to bankruptcy stipulations contrary to the pretrial speculation they made all those arguments before the night is that a supreme court when they've had a supreme court said is exactly what i've said here is that that issue has now moved judgment that good faith settlement statute in the california once the california statute says it's before the verdict ours doesn't say that but it that's the purpose of these  amend i said i wrote a letter on that with a recent case where the nevada supreme court went on a great of why you should grant and they reversed the judge her refusing the amendment and even allow