which the district court refused to find in this case you must approach it assuming it applies here to get it wrong i think judge should did not begin in the first days in listening to the status of a relationship as being the plaintiff's insurance company the insurance company representative met with the injured party the day after the accident and induced the plaintiff to sign a comprehensive release not i don't think it certainly was not any issue focused on by the district court this was a limited release in fact it's a comprehensive release and it was not defended in this case by aggressive standing before the court and saying no we don't inter that release as a for release but he said on the release or is it about the allegations that plain as to what happened on that day as the allegations of the deception and the misrepresentation to forge one conduct in connection with the execution of the obligation of the insurance company to its insured and absolutely right all those i would do would only arise in the context of the fact that she was insured by progressive as federal expenses hospital medical nursing expenses accrued on accrue claims loss of consortium etc if including personal injuries so it's work if fully releasing an action hero correct fully releasing the right of a and other than plane or in the release where the first party the first party claims that is releasing their own first party point other than mentioning the pipes of clean just releasing against the barrel it does not it doesn't mention the insurance company it doesn't mention motorist coverage we know would be under an uninsured it would be under insured if you release the towards the user you are in fact releasing your claim for under insured motorists benefits against your own insurance carrier unless the insurance carrier consents has the day after an accident where they alleged personal injuries releasing the twerk fees or in return for four hundred dollars i think the losses obviously are good for releasing a claim to hasn't even been asserted yet because this i think it's a distinction without a difference really and really the answer is what is the consumer fraud act all about and if the once court said and a new jersey supreme court guided that you start any discussion of applicability of consumer fraud act is that it apply and if it's not going to apply the burden is on the insurance company to come forward and say here is how the consumer fraud act materially conveyed conflicts with other comprehensive regulations that affect the insurance business sure  well i think but i think that's what the supreme court without it's applicable unless you can show me specifically and precisely and sharply i think it was the words used by the supreme court tell me where it conflicts that's number one number two is one this court has evaluated the same circumstance we haven't seen any kind of conflict between the consumer fraud act and this complex area of regulation that affects insurers it literally complex admittedly within the jurisdiction in many occasions to the department insurance to enforce it but that does not mean that the consumer itself does not have a remedy and most important judges this wasn't as you're the court properly pointed out this was a release of a claim to a third party said nothing to do with a denial  if there is when it's relating to a claim it's not covered under consumer product but here we've got to step back what's happening about a release of third party benefit the consumer product wasn't intended to cover any third party transaction would be  in other words we told you that this was about your claim really it was this release which you didn't read or properly understand that it was about their own but because it was about their own it wasn't about your play so you're not that then any time you had a contractual relationship with somebody if you entered into a new contract or if you had any negotiations or if you had any other dealings with between those parties the knows what all the hundreds covered under the c s a if you just got to that right if you misrepresent and commit i'm just i mean other than your assertion that this has nothing to do with that i'm still struggling to understand if the claim in the complaint is they came representing they were there on my contract about the deal with my claim under the contract i had in the execution of them to get what they want so what difference does it make if you're honest correct and this is this is about first party benefits under the contract related to this release that it's about the denial