the washington supreme court told the running of a one year suit limitations clause an insurance contract for the period of time between the insurance notice of loss any surance company's denial of a rule there are dark thing for the specific circumstances of the case presented by the facts before them but it's a rule that the courts have adopted for the purposes of addressing an issue affecting all insurance policies and all policyholders governed by this one year suit limitations clumsily it looks to me as if the washington courts when they talk about equitable tolling in a jillion other areas have always talked about diligence expense he's mentioning and some at least tinge of unethical behavior on the hapless the person who's going to be nailed by the equitable tolling looking at this record from  use then if it is difficult to find diligence it seems very difficult to find any change of unethical behavior washington of course provides that if you're in the basis of heavy duty negotiations then they have to say hey guys wait a minute this stack is going to run but that's not this case let's fight but i don't quite see just offhand where's think the ill behavior on the happened the insurance companies actually were not making that the insurance companies acted in an inappropriate or ill way here what we're arguing is that as a matter of law we believe that this issue were presented to the washing supreme court they would adopt  i'm saying you want the one year to stop as soon as you file the claim right yes and toll until they deny it you know right yes you know you know the answers weren't really just saying it's a policy limitation period happen if the statute but i'm for sure but it comes to the same thing you want to stop not as a matter of equity but just as a matter of law it just stops when it's filed right that's correct and we believe that's the kind of  appropriate in this case is what's at stake here is an insurance contract and the starkly if you look at the decisions of the wash and supreme court the washington supreme court in a number of cases just that we have a structure that draws a distinction between types of insurance contract with the legislature of the state of washing and what you want us to do is he wants to the steward race the distinction that  le one year one from the date of occurrence what i believe the legislature said in the statute is in certain contracts it's permitted to have statutes a moment patience as short as one year back and what you want to do is to say the washing legislature intended let me explain if i can that's what i think you'd like under the under that reading of the washing statute yes it insurance company didn't not deny coverage within a one year period so they took thirteen months to do so for whatever reason and then they deny coverage at that time the claim would be right but you'd be taking a position washing legislature had prohibited policy holders from manson claims under that circumstance and i don't think that's what the intended i letter dated september twenty seventh two thousand and four and for the first time one of the circuit courts of appeal has looked at this issue and all five of those courts reach the same conclusion that the district court did hear that the time for removal runs on the date of actual receipt by the defendant and not on the day of service on a statutory agent well let's forget it the point is judges finish and it's over the nice are going to said it's finished we don't go back and look