judge below relative to why we think that the respect for the quote below was in error initially the issue is whether or not the sentry policy should have been applicable in other words whether or not under a roberts vs northwind of the century policy was the primary under insurance policy and the stay farm was the access under insurance policy under the under insurance provisions that were cited in the record i think of the record as of one zero nine relative to the century thousand dollars sentry made the judgment that there were no other limits relative to the primary under a primary liability policy in other words the underlying case which was in two page the defendant was dealt he had a worker's compensation lien that was held as well and i think that the vision there was sixty thousand dollars relative to that and then the remaining forty thousand dollars was too was a consortium claim mrs kat sentry did as primary and when should pursuant to northwood is make the judgment that they were entitled as the primary hundred sure policy to withdraw or to sell off i should say the forty seven thousand six hundred fifty four dollars an eight cents for the nets the other issue that was raised below by the judge rose relative to mrs cats receiving the forty thousand dollars and whether an ad bet should be considered as a set off relative to the stay firm policy from coverage w it's clearly knows that and i would add this in terms of emphasis they knew how to do this because if you look at the language and if i could just read just briefly from it this is the language i will stay firm under the cover defines web confect is bodily injury and what they say here is a bodily injury to one person who's only three damage to others resulting from this bodily injury again no specific setting out of any kind of loss of services or personal injury which is what his source of it is and then they go on to talk about emotional distress and there you go into all the emotional distress resulting from this bodily injury sustained by other persons who do not sustain paoli injury in other words the only the only reference of all the stacking was we have two arguments on this the one of march ninth at page forty six of plaintiff appellant's brief and it had nothing to do with the idea that say firm was asserting that there there was the essential argument the state farm's motion for summary judgment and its appellate brief is that the century got it wrong there was no under insured coverage under the sun three policy coverage the statute says then an under insured vehicle means that the under insured coverage has to be more and that's what features liability coverage that's not what occurred here in this case liability coverage was one hundred thousand dollars and centuries under insured coverage is fifty thousand dollars there was no difference in limits there was no under insured claim just because sentry got it wrong that sentry decided to make some there's never been a dispute although state farm issued three policies each with two hundred fifty thousand dollars of coverage it's clear from the amended complaint and the answer in the argument is there's never been any argument ever that the three stay firm policies stack and they don't because the statute says that when you have more than one policy the limit of liability is a policy that provides the high scrubbers the highest amount of coverage is the same in all three policies two hundred fifty thousand dollars so is no primary coverage so would whatever reason sentry may have had for pain the two thousand dollars and change to mr katz in the record does not support katz well first of all your honor i find it first i did sleep the the i think the cases are very clear you can't have one fifty five relief unless you can show that there was of age reasoned opinion you can see the judge billick agreed with state farm it's difficult for me to imagine how a trial court can find can side with state farm as to its legal right humans and then have the the the bottom line is century got it wrong some three should not have made any payment stay firm was entitle to offset against this coverage the amount that  and under insured coverages can be offset by workers compensation payments and that's what stay firm is asserting here they're entitled to that set off they're also entitled to a full credit for the hundred thousand dollars with rather what they paid us was one hundred sixty one thousand eight hundred seventy six dollars because initially and i think this ties in with the court's earlier question with regard to what is the basis for section one fifty five damages  denials i mean essentially we have we have a situation where they initially took the position contrary to what they're saying here in their briefs initially took the position that in fact there was a  relationship co ax us or coa insurance relationship with century in fact what they wanted to do in fact was basically recognize the fact that they were co ax us insurers and that they could have some sort of a division of the funds only when they looked at their own policy language which identified the fact that no in fact there was no co relationship between them and century but rather of the relationship between them the century was the primary and they were the only access under insured there to change so for them to suggest the center got it wrong when they themselves took that same position earlier is inconsistent  was raised for the first time in their brief was between between say farm as the excess under insured and century as the primary under insured in roberts versus north what has effectively defined exactly how that works