different look at the facts which may reveal how the court below was an error this is a appeal from a summary judgment decision by the district court against us and we believe on the novo review of that when you look at the record and not the way in which the judge reviewed the record you'll find out that there were genuine issues material fact if not an actual ruling in our favor and see to international space and i will point out some of the errors that are made miami and the first thing i want to do is go over the parties because it's important there are secret service internationally it's a franchise war to some extent it has liability for the injury but i'll get to how with their seats in miami that's the franchisee there is st paul which is the defendant that's the insurance company that had policies with c two international and there are a lot that's the insurance carrier company that had policies really four insurance companies here the parties themselves insure each other and one of the insurance rather from direct claims have their own claims as well now here we have a case where captain was injured and was injured and sea to miami you know it bought a hook it's bought a number of would have still have the claim a products liability that wasn't released nor was it even considered and we're not dealing here with the as much as we're dealing here with the bad faith and the international and miami had agreed not to bring them they they stood as one that's what they wanted to global resolution of the case and this is wholly ignored by the court below as  legal bill for periods of time when city people didn't even appoint an attorney for seat or national and that's me by the way i was the guy there and i just i will argue with your honor that c to miami has its own atop that your honor we have the liberty case from the new york state court of appeals which is pretty close tom point and says a cause of action for bad faith will not lie with the insurer contrary to the wishes of the insured has settled within the monetary limits of the policy under this type policy it's pretty clear now see to it tries to evade the very straightforward and dispositive nature of the policy of liberty by trying to take the potty a standard which is the benchmark standard in new york for to settle we don't want you to settle within limits we want you to hold out and pay even more so that you know the franchisee will have some you know if x somebody to finance their they're out of the case tried to settle the case in fact the case did settle fully defended to a fully insured resolution there's not even a breach of contract claim penny more now conceded there was no breach of contract so would see those asking you to do something pretty extraordinary and that is look at this record here there is nothing in this record that suggests even if you could take this retrofitted view of poppea there is nothing in this record that suggests anything st paul did amounts to reckless and knowing in difference that it's insured would be held to a liability which at the time would have been a clear liability not just a possible liability but a clear liability spec to all doubts having been raised despite that knowingly and indifferently  exposed it's insured to extra contractual damages the court i won't go over everything on the judge send a pretty thorough job at this record and said no rational trier of fact could possibly find that to be the was talking about with for good reason the notion that the direct target defendant here triple check upon whom just about eighty percent liability if not more was being foisted upon was going to somehow be able to under under political law shipped all of its responsibility to the franchise owner in long island who was not in sight who was not the target defendant it was not there was no clearly no clear liability of this ind fication to an extent beyond limits or otherwise that same paul you know knowingly disregarded in an act of bad faith even if even if there was such a cause of action under these circumstances and even if it was missed as judge had pointed out in the worst possible scenario you have negligence not knowing indifference and reckless disregard and you could look at poverty for that even poppea which is  to me thank you your honor i first want to deal with the question that judge wesley raised because i forgot to take to add a point to this if all of the claims the g l policy the general liability policy that's the position all rely took that leaves only the wasting policy not enough to cover the case that six hundred thousand dollars worth he sell for two point two five million that's t second this concept of a direct target defendant doesn't make any sense they're both defendants that's st paul's on conjecture in fact the settlement offer which is on page eleven of the decision s think it fits neatly in we have a we have a defendant here st paul who hires an attorney who provides only opinions with respect to its own policy and its own liability and then attorney supposed to represent see to  and to boot he rigs the case with the plaintiff to submit a summary judgment motion to fix it so the court rules a certain way to benefit his position with his carrier that is wrong it's exhibit a to the complaint we can't sit here and tolerate this and i wish to at the end of this yes i agree i've been told this before might be fifteen years since the since the new york court has allowed a bad faith action to proceed now is the time we shouldn't let carriers get away with this and