the duty to defend under massachusetts law which is well established and the duty to defend does not hinge on the outcome of the underlying case filed against my clients in suffolk county court the dollars faction was suing another faction but each faction claimed to be the named insured so if your corner of us were claiming to be the named insured why doesn't that limitation on the policy apply to them so that there would be no coverage and no duty to defend ok said twenty two dollars is that of course that case wasn't about insurance tall all that case was about clichy asacol law and the question of whether the bylaws that did give authority to my clients to make decisions with respect to the congregation were it was superceded by the mother church so this business of course not very responsive well the issue with sure verses in short two things one is credit exclusion take care of this case ok so under the terms of the policy there's one organization and then on the date of the complaint there was only one nor organization that was n p c so it would be impossible for the defend the question then would be an inappropriate resolution on the motion to dismiss if there is an actual dispute but our position is there is not a factual dispute if you measure her from the face of the complaint traction well we also have the complaint naming the lead an individual insurance the code the policy is what has wide language protecting individual insurance on it the district court and the complaint admitted that the individual stories were former members so they're covered the question then would become whether what they did was wrong for conduct when they were still members and the complaint is rife with allegations i would direct the court to  appendix indicates that between the time that the mother church determined there was a schism and between the time that it made a final determination internally as to the true church there were thirty four days that my service of well my argument is if you look at the insured vs insured question you have to look at who is named in the policy they were certainly insurance on it they decided that the question is who is the insurance on that piece cited to be there are two presbyterian boston there is no question they are not in shorts as undisputed and there actually is case law of apologists not said in your brain but there is case law that central district california to suggest if there is one insured that is actually if there is one to claim between parties that is not covered by the church's exerted scrutiny the entire case has to be defended that's number one number two is the very question under is was who is the true insured and and the time the complaint was filed there was one church there was one congregation my clients were part of their congregation there was one corporate and it id number they all had benny in the property worshipping in that property that was the issue and when is the we allege when they made the claim up please defend us that's all the claimants please tell us that this is what you describe exactly and that's precisely why there was a duty to defend because there was a possibility of coverage there's a good faith dispute on the merits of that complaint and regardless of who was that quote you to church for n p c purposes the individual defendants were never swore members that is undisputed and of course the record also shows that for nine months after the filing of that complaint the insurance company cashed checks for premium payments from my clients  exclusion of course is a contract and so we have to apply the plain language of the exclusion the individual sure insurance on the face of the explosion are not covered so the question is whether the two plaintiffs would qualify the presbytery of boston their our best undisputed so then the question becomes whether n b c as playtest which was at that moment not even a legal entity it was a nominal plane if intent of the parties if there were a subsidiary then the eggs that were on the piece side of either that student joined the presbyterian boston then there would be a clear exclusion i b i exclusion if the if the insurance company  exclusion the individual insurance and one of the members had joined the lawsuit there would have been of course the exclusion but all of these contract terms of as you know are construed in favor of the insurer sure on the underlying claim the person against now shot is march th two thousand and seventeen what happened to that entity in terms of name changes what happened to that case is not at all relevant it does not write retroactive good morning may please the court actually safely a great american great to be in by pointing out one critical undisputed fact which is that the plaintiff newton covenant church in this case is a different is alleged in the in the briefs and in the things in the case it was formed after the state court case began after a final judgment entered in the state court case and after the great did this factor to the decision to grant the motion allegations in the state court complaint and i believe that is what is referenced in the district court the district court's decision and that goes directly to what was said previously which is when  evaluating insurer's duty to defend a court matches the allegations in the complaint with the policy provisions and that in our view is what the district court was doing when it referenced the unauthorized name change and quote it wasn't necessarily thank you your honor i i think that is correct and i don't think the district court did that i think credit credited that as an allegation made in the state court complaint and sort of froze that moment in time when great american was making its evaluation as to coverage whether the allegations made out a reasonably susceptible claim for coverage under the policy opinion refers to both sorts of costs are rising here that's correct your honor thank you it does go to the insured versus insured exclusion and whether something whether a vote was taken that was unauthorized person or into ecclesiastical rules and whether a name change was unauthorized definitely goes to whether there was a schism within the congregation that would qualify this situation for the insurer versus insured exclusion from coverage and i do believe that that was another reason that district court opinion down to a one minute summary of the great american policy issue in this case fundamentally removes internal power struggles from coverage and that is in our view so in taking a step back and looking at the district court's decision in this case what that decision said was regarded lists of how the state court case came out regardless of whether the n c c was who it said it was there was no coverage either because the plaintiffs are not insured under the policy or because the insured vs insured exclusion of applied to defeat coverage in this case so there was no fact finding performed at the district court level and all the district court did was take the state court case allegations and match them up to the policy provisions which is exactly what it was required to do to determine whether there was a duty to defend in this case the district court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is moot but it bears noting that the materials that the plaintiffs themselves submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment further support the fact that there is no claim here well initially not presented to the district court in the complaint the plaintiffs themselves submitted the settlement agreement in which the claims before the district court below were unequivocally released this well it appears that the appellant is not pressing this on appeal it would be an issue on remand this is not a case that could be replete it to make out a claim to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because of that breach of contract cases on page twenty two dollars of their opening brief plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in applying the possibilities standard so forth and tumbly according to the language and adopted the current ability standard for motions made pursuant to rule twelve b sex under twamley the relevant question is whether assuming the factual allegations are true the plaintiff is stated a grounds for relief that is b six grounds and the plaintiff's allegations in in their district court complaint had to meet the possibility standard and the district court found that it did not meet the possibility standard and t didn't for just missile hear the corporate plaintive did not exist when coverage was sought even if it did it wasn't the entity insured under the policy and even if it was the entity insured under the policy the insured vs insured exclusion applied to defeat coverage you can go through the same analysis with respect to the individual plaintiffs the individual plaintiffs did not fall within the definition of insured under the policy and even if they did they were not sued for actions undertaken on behalf of the insured organization which is a requirement under the policy and even if they were again we arrived at the insurer vs and shirt exclusion which would defeat coverage the n p c the actual named insured on this policy was on the other side of the fee any way you slice this case you arrive at the inter versus insured exclusion which defeats coverage proposition that if one of the claims is not covered by the insured which is insured exclusion the entire case must be defended by the insurance company and that's what applies here