before you get to where we shouldn't pay attention to her not ok do you mean the footnote to conclude that we should treat this policy the way circumstances a self insured retention could be deemed their primary layer over which an excess policy sets in processing and so the court was then dealing with the priority of coverage issue that we have here we have a concurrent policy dear which had to do you know you you've been consistently referring to the director i wonder if in the context of the boston gas case it's the it's clearly a different situation insurance isn't that we're really interested in is is often surance insurance because we're considering the word insurance in the policy and if it is valid workable insurance then hundred and fifty thousand dollars limit makes sense to treat it exactly right and would insurance policy because they are peer who's paying the st two hundred and fifty thousand dollars there are two issues that scottsdale raises argument because of the so that we reached after the judge issued his decision on the beach or defend the judge specifically found that the contract that existed between those in the united rentals should not be buying judicial admissions because she didn't have the authority to make those decisions but mr morrison clearly did and he agreed with her and then she in the september th two thousand and twelve information or writ thank you gary cole with kennedy c m k for scottsdale having sat here for a while do you have questions to start or should i just pick a place and go forward because you know you have plenty of it i mean this tends to get complicated but it doesn't have to be complicated just the documents you know the the policy that they want to call fronting nice witness in this case to testify it was affronting policy we cited it to a case where we were nice took the position that it's not something costly that is obligated to provide coverage of the ace policy that we attached at the label it insurance therefore it is within the scope of valid in collectible insurance no matter how remote from real insurance didn't matter because they treat it like it's not a real insurance policy this is the whole point the certified question pay if they do pay these can step in if it wants to step in it is st dollar coverage on that policy if it chooses to be and it's obligated to be when they don't pay so it's not fronting see then it would have been helpful to have  sets out how the policy is supposed to work the two million dollars is like i said it's just not the one thousand you have in your car it's two million dollars in this case but then again your point is that that policy has as much better with a collectible insurance as if he examined same policy was written and the deductible had some other a number of them to let them exactly it's an insurance policy and so is the other one with yes i are they're both insurance policies  nonsense i'm looking in this record and i'm looking i'm holding insurance policies in my hand that have a policy number that have a jacket attached to them that have exclusions an endorsement and limits and all kinds of things policy periods and there tony is not an insurance policy  specifically what i say policies get it by companies they get a premium for them and then they provide coverage this policy works and for instance you know the rest of us can take this policy in users financial insurance financial proof insurance for other insurance i suppose that if there were a c e o of shifting of risk if the document that people were relying on said nothing about the insurance company going out with patient you could argue that there was no shifting of risk i don't think you can argue that on the east policy and i will tell you in fronting confronting arrangements that are that are common involve far insurers one of right here through licensed insurance companies and the insurance company puts its paper out and they read insure for but that doesn't make it change the nature of the policy and that's what makes it real and sure that's what makes a collectible insurance but that makes the fight known boston gas iraq but the reason we have to use the question in this case is because the luminal liability if the amount of the proposition it's an all or nothing proposition for the portion of the liability that's not the additional insurers direct liability the issue in this case the problem in this case for united rentals was their goal was to get sued by the plaintiffs united rentals