the first case was waiver that was initiation a claim the second one was this which was filing the lawsuit so it wasn't just a lawsuit that's right and there's also a case for the last decision that suspends the time for appealing  lawsuit that issue hasn't come up in the context of the surest contract or is there any alaska decision that suspends the time limit for anything other than the initiation of  yes there's this court in the harem versus all state versus herron case held that the same notice prejudice rules apply to cooperation clauses in the contracts so they they apply the last state courts because jurisdictions in the federal court so i wouldn't expect to find that the issue as we see it really is what's the breadth of alaska's notice precious rule we think it's the broadest has broader broader than any other states rule my problem i think it's the next next layer even assuming that you're correct about that as i understand the risks in order for a state law are excuse  insurers was the west tourist case and the west as we pointed out in our brief the westerners case wasn't decided on the basis that those precious rule it was decided on the unfairness with which the cruise line gave notice of their one year limitation that you can read it that way but you can also i think read it more broadly but it seems to me that you know rescind a statutory exception former state regulation of insurance is about regulation of insurance it's not about being lenient to plaintiffs and lawsuits i guess i just have trouble seeing how in fifty the federal statutory requirements well that was decided on versus ward your honor which was a notice produced case out of california strictly and that case would have been decided differently if the california rule all had applied to other kinds of lawsuits right but we don't have an alaska case that says that those precious rule applies outside of the insurance contract long worsens holland america line that's the one i just discussed that that wasn't decided on the basis notice precious it was decided on the basis that it was unfair in the way the cruise company sent the one year limit to file suit t no that's right but they didn't decided on notice prejudice notice prejudice says simply says you have to prove prejudice to apply the rule in in the long case what the court said is that they were unfair in the way they well i said that case they didn't just say only thing the plaintiff has to prove is that the cruise line was was not prejudiced that wasn't the holding in that case they said the holding was that because they gave them no time to send the ticket back because the time limit was on the ticket and when the ticket was received they didn't have time just to say oh i don't want to do this because they'd already spent the money and there was no refund that's the holding in the gas  wasn't the intent of that decision to say that the notice precious rule solved the case because might have been another ground but the court's not saying things just to say things i mean we have the same issue and what's what stick to the ninth circuit that when you're taking a look at a case and you're trying to figure out what is the holding what's the precedent here about surnames if i'm if i need to establish that proposition when you expect me to cite that case and quote that proposition and say look this is what the alaska supreme court says well i would imagine as a good a good lawyer you probably would say that but but the point of the matter is the case does not it would have been much simpler case if the court simply said that time limit won't apply unless west tour shows prejudiced by the delay that's not what they said they said they won't allow it to be applied at all because the way that ticket the way that the limitation was delivered to the customer they didn't give them any time to reject that's the whole that there is a somewhat different issue most of the cases that i've seen in this field deal with contractual provisions that purport to shorten the time of a new statue imitations maybe two statutory standard is the same thing the contracts yes well this is the that's a regulation rather than a statute your honor but the regulation says at least one hundred eighty days it doesn't say you have to file a case i've taken rule doesn't apply these provisions unless it what it calls arbitrary provisions that were not bargained for unless there's a purpose for applying it which in the insurance cont means that there was prejudice that insurance company is being prejudiced by the delay and and they didn't even claim they were prejudiced in their denial letter of our appeal also you're just about out of time if you want to save a minute or so after you are thank you very america case he takes the position that that is in fact an insurance case i guess and that and or that notice prejudice ruled in having to do with that case could you address his contentions is he wrong and if so in much broader rule it is based on broad principles of fairness of an equal bargaining power that don't exist in this case and it is a it's a rule that is more like a pliable princip the dress clauses setting time limits in the commencement of suit in the context of insurance policies and then i go i was goes on to say well this kind of contract is really not unlike that and so it does apply it more broadly but it's clear that the core of least the origin of the doctrine appeared to be something that arises in the context of insurance policies why doesn't that fit you an exception well because it because it's more of a broader principle and it is say what the word court indicated was a part of a prince can't be that the court and another jurisdiction where are the notice prejudice rule applies courts apply equitable principles and so if a court decides in a given context there should be equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and that context happens to cover something other than insurance are you saying that you know for bids the application of the notice prejudice rule of the insurance doctrine out of the insurance doctrine  deal with with getting into the arena in the first instance here we're already in the arena the claim was already in the arena and on the field of play and our view is once you're on the field of play have to play by the rules of the game here those are dictated based internal appeal deadline it's what it's what the what the department of labor dictated would constitute a fair and reasonable claims period and there's no surprise there's no develop you wouldn't want to go through that issue that would be an issue yet to be developed you know that would be an issue yet to be developed i certainly prejudice can be assume for such a along the way it is a very this was not a matter of because it would be disregarding the clear terms of the plan and that would impact the plan in a negative way and impact other beneficiaries in a negative way impact others well by number one by opening up the door to a number of late claims by making the process much less certain much less predictable much much more expensive and make it less likely that employers would be willing to offer such plans in the future i think chance so again you're not compelled to use them but that's fine i don't have and i know that i know better than to keep going when i think you know your honor so your questions have been answered if there are any other questions i'd be happy to address them if not  chang the fact that there are alternative grounds doesn't give you leave to disregard one of them well when they can't read shang and not reach the conclusion that that has it's been cited for now it's not binding honest it's memoranda disposition but it's simply not true that the court didn't pass on an issue of law on that decision or one of those cases said that the nose pressure only applied to liability policies and that wasn't a liability policy what chuang said the supreme court did not hold however the notice prejudice rule applies to a claim its right to request subsequent to problem review of the insurers decision and went on to say the court is not inclined to make such a significant and unprecedented extension of this rule now you can read it any way you want to but it says what it says and the fact that there was an alternative ground that might have justified the result doesn't negate what the court actually said well if if if you rule if you know the facts and there's no way that the notice apply anyway then the court is simply saying that's what i think both of those cases if you read read the reasons so it's not just alternative grounds the notice precious rule would have never applied anyway given the fact that they knew that it wouldn't be applied on those well beyond insurance do you agree that preamps notice produce rule in this case no i don't agree with that because we don't have any in my view we don't have any  basis for saying that those projects rule because it's because they say this is like that situation that they're actually applying it outside that's all that was something question the question is counter to your argument that is