you're that the game is over for you but nevertheless you should guide yourself up i'm on the basis that you're only entitled to fifteen minutes per side everything else is a matter of privilege so basically you have a summary judgment as far as notice of the occurrence you have another notice of summary judgment in this follow up another summary judgment in this filing and so what's the difference between the two i there are new issues to be raised will the current briefs that you filed as far as you're concerned properly cover the area that is traversed now by will be up it's strictly vote make it record without any editorial comment which could also be called the supplemental brief there will be no supplemental briefing just time that they have they are now throwing in the towel that they've done with i'd be terminations if we should do so that eleven months is not too long they found the fact that they can that the agency issue is and isn't something that has to be considered under the law which it does but but you can't really consider any of those in complete vacuum which is what i think insurance company would like to have us doing here and what i think they argued to judge all that that they should do there and i think that's that's an appropriate you can't you can't consider oh well if we lose in this we've got another and it shouldn't be in the form of testimony from you but in chimes of the record what is in the record that's up profile it's the school and limits of that's the be election and will of course  still that eleven months is the only period that they want to consider they don't want to consider the additional seven months beyond that before northlake finds out about the the the  agent who does nothing has no clue in his own words what to do with the motion for default and in fact does nothing but you know i think we should really get the issue here now the other  i guess i guess we did i think at the trial court level mr lane if you were objecting to how the court was receiving a ruling and that you wanted to explore all these other issues that hearing and that should have been taken care of there like maybe you know what i'm saying is that you're considering an eleven month period and in the private that'll open area i agree that that's the only issue in front of us we don't have to worry about the september notice for the interest you want to nail that down right now so that only the eleventh month can be ever considered in this in the entire course of the litigation here as well as the law it's crass what you're attempting to do it strikes me entities you're all whether you know it or not are inviting us to consider the eighteen month gap if we should to get into the subject of this appeal rather than its periphery ok and and the the point is that the let's start with right at the beginning the policy language asked whether he received a notice here let me let me point that out that point we want to talk about that eighteen months i know but the fact of the matter is that that the insurance company gives notice according to their own statement on september  are still pending for just that all takes place after the default doesn't yes yes it does and there is case law that pretty much makes the occurrence of and pursue both the coverage aspect of the case and the two fourteen zero one you know i did not get a rundown of counsel of but i would think that good that the insurance companies kelso would probably be in a much better position to is on reason a book without putting prejudice into the mix that the trans reasonability so if you say it's not reasonable then you look you're begging the question because we don't know that it's unreasonable would want to agree with it but your opponents have taken a different position there well that the point is that in terms of the record of specter which which remains the one factor to consider under the horse matter what i think and you really talking about the extent of prejudice how could you deny someone prejudice which in a lot of course could be some could mean all and could mean opportunity that they did not choose to avail themselves of that's all i'm saying in effect that's really the core of the argument that they could have done something they chose to do something different but the fact is not your only argument just the other the other factors we wanted to talk about the sophistication argument a lot of fake paperwork was just devoted to that but the bottom line is george one fellow was not exactly  know mr got rocks he did not do he was not a captain of industry he was a guy who failed at a number of different jobs and you know this was the latest in a long line of businesses that failure alone is not the test otherwise here but but in order to decide the matter of law you have to review the questions affect that's why it's the noble review and those those specs that were considered and you know we're stressing only to the extent of the injury on the one side we're saying  wait that's not the only the only thing that that should be considered and i think that that's the primary focus on the other side really huge factor here is what is reasonable for george longfellow to believe at the time of this injury w that he relied on the waiver that that would mean that he was sophisticated enough to remark so you're kind of going back on yourself well i think i'm taking you know look we talked about you know whether this whether the defense would put a reasonable lawyer well the question was where they were whether it's totally subjective in the this determination which it seems to be it seems to be personal and subjective rather than well the question is when you talk about subjective or objective whether or not when you look back at the facts that are established by the record whatever those facts are whether you look at them as what a reasonable person george one photo shoot should have done an objective standard or whether you look at it solely through the eyes of george longfellow which is a subjective standard i think that the case of probably from leans more towards the objective side which is really the reason why we mention all these other factors  a reasonable person just heard from a fellow's shoes might have considered that possibly a product case might have considered it you know a freak occurrence that's nothing to do with him because it had nothing to do with what the conduct of play on the field you know it was another kid at the party who accidentally discharged the paint ball gun in the first place you may have thought or a reasonable person in george one philip shoes may have thought oh well that that wouldn't be something that would come back to me they might sue the it's of perfect it who pulled the trigger those are the kinds of factors that if you look at it on a slowly objective standpoint of you know maybe if you get into the other factor so briefly i see you look at the watch so the only just referenced in fact there was at least one letter that was sent to the school district there it was a copy of the letter sent to the lake county superintendent that complained about insurance coverage but it did not specifically open there are multiple issues that have been raised by both northland and the paintball association including compliance with other provisions of the policies including