and reduced by also must be able pursuant to the contract the contract is the basis of any obligation function mutual is only their contract and they had already limits already different now for every attempt to try to avoid having to pay for legal services rendered to it and legal services which they benefited from  in to be reimbursed met fun for litigation way when you have ownership interest in this particular case though the lean was never wait until after the fund was already create the fund was created before it ever later there was that why does that make a difference i don't think it really does make a difference whether they take it as a lean or as the ticket as a saddle because the fun is still being created there's still receiving the benefit from the fun if the fundies never created they never get one hundred thousand saddle of their two hundred fifty policy if the funding is never created they never their med pay back whether it's a sad off who are leaving the fun is still creative and they still receive a benefit from that's why i don't believe whether it is a set off or taken as a lean makes any difference in case but in this particular case the fund was already created what country mutual wants beautiful do is flip flop they want to have their cake and eat it too they want to be able are they want to be able if there is no under insured policy they want to sit there and say you need to protect or leave you need to protect or leave you need to do this in reimburse us but then the second is that  they go to another and certainly they want to jump on the other side of the fence is it oh we were asserting a lien you didn't have to protect that for us we're now waiting that they can't have your cake and eat it they have to you know they have to stay on one side of the fence in this particular case they sent two letters before this that moment and one letter after the settlement we have a fifty thousand net pay lien protect our interest and they asked us would pay you contingency fee of one third for protecting our interest that's what we did we protected their interest and then after we protected their interest they then said oh no wait we didn't want you to do that and when you look at again off and on and they can collect the pay if we didn't do that and there was no common fund in which they benefited from that's how we protected their interest we didn't didn't distribute the money to miss shuffler not paying back to med pay what they had that that's how we protected their interest we didn't distribute out the hundred thousand in the shuttle we knew country had a lean because they had bite us a couple times we protected their interests sent them a ladder a eerily similar they are they are right on point in the in what the stephen court addressed you know like in stevens we have examined you know country what have they had to spend substantial administrative and legal resources to recover the fifty thousand in met pay under the supposition and bring in stevens to court said that they would have had that country mutual would have had it would spend substantial administrative in legal resources to recover i think it was twenty six thousand whatever the amount was in that case in stevens they talked about under the subjugation agreement that the plaintiff in that case was obligated to hold the proceeds of the common bond unlike in stevens in this case under just country was able to limit its liability by being able to deduct from the their under insured motorists claim i believe in that he's in the hundred thousand as well so like in steven's plan she was able to limit its liability by deducting the hundred thousand in the common fund that was created by the king and mom this case is not about the policy but between which they benefit from the common fund that was created by the attorneys and that's what the steven stevenson stephens court talks about so like in that case we created a fun which they would have instead of receiving the full eighty thousand men hey big in this situation they would have only received thirty three thousand three hundred thirty three dollars the other sixty thousand would have only pursuant to the common doesn't have to pay attorney's fees for receiving the benefit of this one shuffle and turn it in sixteen thousand six hundred sixty six dollars last and that particular case that's why i think the s obtained the policy limits of the tour we are in this stevens court addressed in three separate ways how closely mutual benefit from those services they talked about three different benefits then and i agree with the two things that must be done first there must be an express statement that it does not want to be the firm to take action and it just been never did they they sent us letters asking us to protect their interest we protected their interest this stevens for talks about how in this particular situation how did provide a benefit to them