because the response that they asked for the extension of that particular point they had sufficient knowledge to make a decision understanding that the that the interview that was supposedly was eager was the driving force as to whether they were whether they would two days before the thirty days expired so we got the it so that they had within the thirty days they waited until twenty days after the thirty days to implement what they knew two days before so i say that trier of fact should make a in two minutes after the three year period or two year period or one year period whatever contained within the policy so why say that because the carrier itself was concentrating on what to do about this issue which yes we do have to focus on whether it is this is a civil action but to me it seems that the focus would be on whether a request for an extension would constitute a response whether somebody who's asked the insurance company for cash right is asking them to settle a civil action i write to a winter's coming tomorrow i say give me five thousand  good offer to settle a civil action no there's no but sort of how do i know what the measure one way to know the measure of it would be a complaint has been filed that would make it better i guess it could but you don't want to use that measure it's my understanding it has to be gravitated towards something we should perhaps as a claim of injury i don't know if we're going to be a pleasure to work property damage claim i'm not sure about that i don't know the future of this problem start to come into legislature what i'm saying is the legislature has opted you out if i was giving a definition as to what this application of that nd uprising means i take the position that it's the legislature with intent as to what twenty seven t obviating this possible source of confusion because it's very unknowable what we're talking about we're talking about the complaint filed at nish aided action in court he says given that that's a very good reason to read it to mean that this when you think about ninety three a one hundred and seventy six d that's it that's not in a way that's not really that much of a different animal than what we're talking about that particular application which you see every day of the week  really no confusion the biggest the biggest issue the protection insurance carrier in situations like this and their position would be we didn't have enough information to make a determination whether or not we had to pay one hundred thousand because  court or independent legal intent the legislature would rise when they implemented that statue i guess sad i can't think we all can understand why they did it it doesn't make any sense to indicate that you could have a case problem with it until we know we conceptualize it in the federal court and the issue is now what is a civil action so you know we've made this terminology to be very very determined to have one big idea of the legislature was to do it you can even get them any type of measure of justice is to work for a technicality and once in a while as i said before the technicality froze towards the plaintiff and what we tried to do what i used to one of these cases is if i filed these cases a different gift if there was if they can some of these cases where we knew it was a huge policy five hundred thousand dollars policy so you know you demanded the five hundred they don't want to pay right away because they figure they can get out of  but there was never a concessional applicability of the statute to these facts or circumstances in fact if you read the letters from a ballot paper they both say repeatedly that we don't agree that this statute applies to the facts in this case they s one thing that's just a little puzzling is that depends on the idea that there was still a valid seller of offer put out by the one making the offer right right the date of that party when they made that offer clearly thought on t contract law means you can't accept an offer that's not on the table so if i put on an offer and i say you've got to respond to this offer within thirty days or to reject it and you call me up and say can i have more time and i say  after the accident happened two years and nine months before the statue of limitations run this is in no way was time of the essence with forgotten this offer so in that respect it doesn't seem to be a material condition of the settlement i mean if you if you look at  they rejected the offer saying we now know intend to seek more than your policy limits i gather that is there a policy in rhode island under  that kind of situation where you can tender the one hundred thousand dollars policy limit to the court and that is your liability you know i don't think it would apply to the circumstances you're on it would not the thing that's all about your position to stop falling is i take the idea that if the offer didn't make clear they have a thirty day deadline they can then say it did have one and you say they didn't make it clear that it had one but the puzzling thing is if they didn't make their wiring to us the critics tension because it can the statute does it does have this thirty day period and that you must have understood the offer to be covered with that we understood that we better proceed with caution and we did i'm to go back to the beginning a little bit i think what we have to recognize is that we're ireland unlike massachusetts does not recognize the cause of action in the ordinary way perhaps people think of it actual action in court i'm talking about two things wrong i'm talking about a the plain meaning of the words the statute talks about a civil action it talks about plaintiffs a talks about defendants those words are in the statute those of the names of parties in a lawsuit but i'm also talking about legal definitions there's a case called for from the nineteen teens in rolla talks about how a divorce action important for purposes of interpretation here as well as really important for purposes of how to think about whether you're liable for the interest on a judgment going forward but i dismiss just still a separate question which i'm struggling with which is because the statute is arguably confusing on that point hadn't been resolved in any clear way by any court you're going to not only read get the benefit of the interpretation of the action from the interest point but then you're also able to treat that settlement off really immaterial term and all the circumstances it was not a material term road otto sells a were both insured under our belt as policy at the time that these settlement negotiations that are at issue in this case are ongoing there for mr johnson and state road auto sales today rely upon  all rise thank you