refer to three the cases that we previously cited in our greece and so our view of the following three points the st one is that the district court erred in and gave to its own rights when defending the insured in a high exposure case under the burning limits illusion liability coverage nd that the district court erred by finding that the general liability policy is not apply even though property damage was caused by a chemical by giving a broad interpretation to the old exclusion a dispute that rock you'll fail to give at least as much consideration to the rights of business sheered as it gave to its own writings the liability case against rocky was insured was strong with hard damages of two dollars to three million dollars and it most rock you'll have in all only a one million dollars of liability coverage well how do you say that they fail in their duty to their insurer i'm sorry how would you say that they failed in their duty to their insurance by not settling the case when they should have been the law is is is very when there is great risk of recovery beyond policy limits the need to give at least as much consideration to the rights of the insured as the insur settle the case for and i'm sorry i'm having trouble hearing what should have settled the case for and when at that point in time what did what rocco should have done was to notify they did it did it was defending under burning limits coverage that it had nine hundred and sixty thousand dollars whatever the number was available and would would s three hundred thousand dollars of its insurance one million dollars of coverage and c s a had incurred over one hundred thousand dollars of costs it was too little too late coverage cases it is crucial that the carrier not on reasonably delay in responding to settlement opportunities we didn't get a realistic evidence was extremely strong it wasn't what rocco was doing was trying to work out a cheap settlement and he could do that at no cost to itself because the insured was paying the defense costs so it continued to try to get a cheaper settlement in its advantage while sacrificing the rights of its insured to common vs traitors in general insurance companies brief it is just that simple you you have you are required to settle the case to under these insured in try to get it cheap settlement at the expense of the defense costs are paid by insured this conflict of interest is so strong that in eight states yardstick by which the rocky hills decisions have to be made and not whether there was a policy limits demand you know a public policy is including there are any clued in the th circuit case it gives the state farm so the undisputed evidence was that the case should have been startled and would have been settled if there had interest in the case and they would defer to california but even if there was no new band a law it wouldn't make any difference because they are the important thing is that there was no  contrary to the california law on yes the nevada laws don't cover all of the issues that are covered by california but what normally happens is that there is a could you try rotating your camera really quick that's much better thank you so much please the court my name is john hussman and i represent rochdale insurance companies i will address the issues in this case in the order the district court did and the district court was correct in finding number one that the mold exclusion eliminates any coverage under the rockville general liability policy and to that no viable claim for bad faith exists in this case as a matter of law the district court was was correct because it found that the pollution part of the coverage of the coverage of the policy applied to the claims by a against rocky hills insured premier and then it went on to find that the mold exclusion in the general i village in coverage part of the policy precluded any coverage  the the pollution coverage part applies because it applies to the release of pollutants and it also applies on his face to mold pollution condition on the other hand the general i ability policy  exclusion and the terms of that exclusion unquestionably cover damage because of the over spraying of a chemical to prevent most specifically that exclusions is that there is no coverage at all for property damage or a claim which would not have occurred in whole or in part but for actual alleged or threatened growth there migration of mode so  they demanded that incident vendors like premier get the vendor agreement says that the vendors had to get general liability coverage without it could not have a limits or burning limits and then if it did mold work that vendor also had to get mold in pollution type coverage and it doesn't say anything about not having burning limbs it's not prohibited and that's exactly what premier does in the point there is c s a is not a bystander to how this coverage program was put together it was in a way the architect of it so the fact that it was making demands it should have known that it was making above limits demands you know in the you know when it tried to make demands to settle this case so ok to address the bad faith the district court was correct there's no there's as a matter of is that there was a settlement demand made within policy limits and that didn't happen the only of likeable coverage was the eroding limits pollution coverage judge even as you noted and therefore nine hundred be for the remainder and you just continue to defend the case without making much ever really settle the case why isn't that when there's a because because in the hypothetical that you pose that's not this case at the time the premier made its you know nine hundred and ninety nine demand the most of these issues were also clear you know our insured believed in our defense counsel believed that they had and they had done follow the standard of care in terms of how they handled the chemical and the  you know and we followed that advice all along we at every step in this process rock you know actively made settlement moves in accordance with what defense counsel was concluding  regarding the reasonable amount of liability and damages in this case the other you know so just even it was a clear case of liability or that there were hard damages or i mean you know just because you know what it what it means to have a defense to a bad faith case which is that if you act reasonably you're not in bad faith and acted reasonably at all times  issues including expert witness issues including issues of whether yes a properly ever tried to remediate the house where those efforts were sufficient whether they you know were given time to you know takes a case to trial and it turns out worse than anyone expected you know anyone on the defense side expected it would and you know you're the defense you know premier it's insured in defense counsel pollution applied i mean you know ca's continually argue that you know when we got a nine hundred and ninety nine thousand dollars demand that the response should have been to go to them and say you know of course they say so now but there's nothing in the record to indicate that would have been the case  rajo would have done would have just you know immediately agreed at the you know a few months into the case that that it was a one million dollars case you know analysis and advice of  defense counsel  a bar here is to prove that rock hill conduct was unreasonable wells st its st hurdle is to find a settlement to man within limits but it can't but even if it was even if the repeated consistent attempts to settle the case including offer the remaining limits you know before trial immediately before trial and the record shows that you know defense counsel was contesting all these issues claims is attempts to rewrite or circumvent that exclusion have no support in the law is just not possible for a bad case to exist in here because there was never a demand within the political limits and it made them there was a reasonable dispute over those remaining policy limits that rocky hill had of seven hundred thousand dollars giving their insured a full release and having the two insurance seized immediately chain we've got to protect our insured we've gambled and we've lost but no they say well we'll just let the insured pay the penalty for our bad decisions on  gambling is case there was no advice of counsel in making that decision rockville made it all on its own thank you your honor and give