good morning me please the court my name is darren rush and i represent the appellant third party defendant ace property and casualty insurance company in this matter the district court feared when it failed to stay or dismiss hylands third party complaint against  in favor of arbitration the district court reached this erroneous result by applying the wrong standard to the issue of arbiter billing and your honors are no doubt aware there is a substantial body of federal case law regarding arbit the and how to determine issues of arbiter ability there is a very strong federal policy favoring arbitration these many cases set forth multitude of rules in forcing that federal policy for example where an agreement contains an arbitration clause there is a presumption of arbitron bill of arbitration clauses are required to be construed as broadly as possible and any doubts in favor of harper triviality must be resolved in favor of arbitration this standard is intentionally love where the arbitration clause is broad even collateral matters meaning collateral issues and disputes should be submitted to arbitration so long as those collateral issues and disputes quote touched matters and quote covered by the arbitration clause the district court here ignored the touch agreement is limited to disputes arising out of that agreement out of the document that ruling that statement is contrary to well established federal law regarding arbitra again it ignores the such matters test he says cited a number of cases applying the touch matters test in very similar circumstances circumstances where there are multiple agreements between the parties one of the parties commences an action based upon one of those agreements one of those agreements that does not contain an arbitration clause the other party responds with the motion to dismiss or stay in favor of arbitration relying upon one of the agreements that does contain an arbitration clause this is by no means a new issue this happens again and again and again there are multiple cases that we have  those issues must be resolved in arbitration the courts have applied this rule to a myriad at different types of disputes the courts have applied and required arbitration of tort claims arbitration even of statutory claims antitrust claims rico claims finding that even though those claims to may not technically all rise under the agreement and the quota share agreement has the date of activate of january first one nine hundred seventy so that was part of the district court's rationale as to why they had to be two separate transactions which responds to that that reasoning apply to different transactions that the court has improperly stepped upon an issue that should be resolved by the armies interpret the contract so i suppose from your point of view the only way we could affirm this record is if that's the only possible interpretation of that language yet your idea like i said by reaching that conclusion that that's an issue that the arbitration panel has to decide if there's nothing to decide though if it's if it's if it's clear as a matter of ma what that contract applies to then there's nothing to arbitrate but i don't think it is clear i mean we the phrase in all cases doesn't necessarily mean fact i think the sixty fourth if when that provision was drafted all of the parties understood in all cases means in all cases where highlands actually issued that policy was actually issued on behalf of multiple cases from both the circuit other circuits as well as district courts not mentioned at all in the court's opinion the issues in dispute here do in fact touch upon matters covered under the the district courts of the district court implicitly found the hollands was in fact a party to the quota share agreement by getting to the issue of scope if if it was not a part of that agreement then there is no discussion of the scope not there is an agreement between the parties that requires arbitration and the second is whether or not dispute an issue falls within the scope of the operation clause what the district court did was determine that the disputed issue was not within the scope of the quarter share agreement and therefore it followed the standard what mr rush refers to is the standard touch matters line of cases it's really a test that that i don't believe really applies to situations where you have to contract i think was the developed originally by  contract and therefore it filed court claims against the other party trying to get away or around the arbitration clause courts rightfully have recognized that that you know just by standing your remedy a different way you should not be able to escape the bounds of the operation clause but but you know that analysis i don't believe will cast like you know this this is not the easiest case to understand with all the contracts on the end of it but the understanding i have of is this and please correct me if i'm wrong then the number five to the sixty four agreement yes it is the basis of your claim against against this right and and that talks about a relationship between highlands and us with regard to reinsurance that's the subject matter of that contract correct correct ok the quotient agreement which comes into this contract is entered into when the parties come to a meeting of the minds in one nine hundred seventy four which is four years after the inception of the quota share agreement correct and the closure agreement also drives the relationship between can't separate the obligations under one from the obligations under the other but you're quite obviously disagrees with that but if if the record permits reasonable inference in favor of either of those two interpretations of the contracts isn't that sufficient given the breath of the arbitration clause in the quota share agreement to send the matter to arbitration you know you are the i don't think it is why did why not  don't think there's any argument that the quarter share agreement really relate or outside of identity number seven really creates any obligations between anyone other than our contention is that it's a form of managing general agency agreement is a poor in agreement whatever it is that it's talked about in how money flows from east to highlands and other members of the pool he's it talks about reinsurer and it sets risk so it's not providing money ok but what if the risk never mind the point is the subject matters of the two agreements with their agenda have to have a relationship to each other well i mean they have some relationship but but you know there is no way that that identity number seven could by his very terms pursuing highlands is because all this business took place prior to the time that ace first entered into the pool through the courts here but now you're trying to bring aids in is a third party defend under a different agreement a nice agreed to take over excess of loss obligations that the poor had originally lined up to protect who members including but i bet your argument then that the closure agreement is relevant to those earlier transactions yes he's arguing otherwise right so somebody needs to interpret the closure agreement correct to see what it's what if what it covers what relevance does any it has to this relationship and that issue seems to falls under the arbitration clause and i think here we have a situation where where time frame difference in parties difference in consideration highlands have this excess of loss program with far an unauthorised reinsurers in place with uncomfortable with it because it had default concerns it had taken it created a trust fund take the premium and in the event that there was a default by entering into amendment number seven h up that trust fund because it now had eight as its excess of loss reinsurance if all islands ever did was if all amendment number seven ever did was create a passthrough points one we don't intend that we're reporting to the quarter share that it had a understand ok but second if that were the standard then all party would ever have to do is say that my contract governs your contract and my contract has an arbitration clause so we have to arbitrate you can have contract for delivery of breaks in a contract for you have to touch and concern and that that's that's the meaning of that has there as the court has to make a threshold finding that there's some connection between the contracts right and here the court can make that that terminations because it deals with different time frames different parties it was entered into for different purposes ok thank you is capital overseas simul of national american insurance company first that score personal security j j ryan all of which are circuit court cases all involve another claim that this breach of contract claim the final point i would make is that