have a whole lot to add to the briefing in the greeting was fairly extensive couple of points i wanted to mention one of the district court repeatedly referenced a case pacific insurance company vs cancer and read that cases allowing me agent and broker to step into the shoes of the insurance company i think we have this great of that argument pacific insurance company vs can't doesn't stand for that and there is no in fact other case so holding the relationship between the insured and the agent broker is different than between the insured and the insure the insurer has different obligations and different liabilities than the than the agent broker does and vice versa so that's one thing and i think  something you should have been resolved on summary judgment something that should've been resolved on a trial i think one of things of the district court did was to actually determine credibility ever sit in my client course and they kind of  by indicating the speed was immaterial and the glue more glaring there are indications of that is that a lot of this case came down to whether or not there was a check box who checked the box no motor vehicle violations in five years  matter whether he understood the and even you know assuming that he did understand and they are you know giving him all of those inferences you know with the court saying that that particular principle and he does admit that you know if he has these you know that he has the violations and he opposition motion for summary judgment and the exhibit actually showed that the motor vehicle grade record from their own file showed that my client had over a five year period for moving violations and one nonmoving while ation what their guidelines show was  or drug related driving conviction just blew out in terms of getting insurance my client didn't have any of those he had a restricted license after the time in question and during the times did as zanny janeiro's was taken and what i'm saying about the obligation for mutual mostly of faith was that they were the two defending the cross to finish we're obligated to inform my client of what is satisfactory driving record was because my client would have no way thousand farmers this farmers asian coding of thirty two hundred and in fact even after the accident in question with the suspended a restricted license he got insurance for a boat for five thousand so the thirty two hundred dollars may not have been an out but of out of the realm of possibility in insurance quote and get one over here eighteen one over here of the says thirty two and i think of this will the same information of both of them which one are you going to take it's not it is not so shocking in comparison to what his prior coverage was or what his subsequent club coverage was for five thousand he should have been aware that most of them based on a misunderstanding of the facts that have a record yes five thirty one through five thirty two that mr marandi and knew that he had a bad record that he knew the check box that requests the and the r should have been ye quote because i have a band record so he knew he had of that record he knew that he should have put yes on the n p r check but he didn't he also knew that this if if we were to think that there was a question of fact regarding whether he knew that his automotive accident was material or whether we are or whether he knew what it was  with no contradictory evidence that he'd back dated the application and never disclosed the on will be an accident that he or the claim that he had on august eighth and he knew he didn't disclose that he knew what was fraud and that on that basis alone the district court's ruling should be differen the underwriter guidelines require the application which is submitted to be part of the application process to get him to have proper and complete and accurate information the fact that they dying line that is not affirmed it is not authentic ated and it is not accurate to apply in this situation the underwriter guideline that he refers to is j eight two three one which which she said by the way didn't understand n p r meant at the time gallegos english is not his first language but if he had done that and sent it back and could they still escape the obligation and that was what difference does the application make the comes back in three weeks subsequent to the event w was on the ball it was on the application there was no attempt to be dishonest there were mistakes made which he admitted if i had realized as i would have corrected it if it's wrong information i shouldn't given information to this wrong i don't think the obligations of the defendants are counted within it's to get the information right take the information they were actually given put it on the application correctly and follow their own guidelines which say you got to have motor vehicle record before you find this sure something said to my continue to look at them in the record thank you very much