stand corrected your own and that is correct and it's undeniable that we would love to see the court revisit the question who were also realistic we understand this court has made its decision on those issues here and back while lawyers that is the gist of one of the art in the sense correct the primary thrust of the case when it began was that the exclusion whether it was properly in the policy or not in control because of the complete conversion count in the fact that the exclusion didn't apply to the conversion  unclear allegation or not your complaint when you're dealing with a duty to defend in that case the court reversed the truck court's determination that there was no duty to defend we think that it warrants all of what we understand and i don't want to hurt ralph just as the cat was here at the last time one of these cases was argued and he made it very clear that he didn't he didn't agree with the arguments and i'm not here to repeat them today and so that's why i thought i needed to stand up here and make it clear the policy and the burden to prove that the exclusion is a part of the policy and that in on big usually applies to preclude coverage rests with the insurer and we talk in the brief a lot but it boils down to the the insurance companies tender the witness as a corporate representative to make repairs to make admissions of these we have and then representative testified that there were two steps to the process we want is that the four must be of the four if those steps were not taken were not proven to have been taken it is our position that the form was not properly used didn't become part of the policy and  in mutual life insurance purses daddy's money those are both cited in the briefs and there's at least an issue of fact as to whether or not these insurers probably comply with the process in texas and therefore whether they may properly rely  testimony certainly we both agreed on that because they tendered another witness to try to fill in those gaps and their second witness ms wilson did in fact testify that they had contract with myself and the act insurance service was the purpose of his testimony was to show that they had in fact complied with the regulatory process and he identified the two steps and then as we go on into that deposition it was clear that he didn't really know anything specific about based on the circulars he had no other corporate or personal information and what he said was the circular say i so did if i can be colloquial in saying that but there isn't actually whether either through surf or otherwise that would have gotten them the implementation date and found no such reference and they were unable to provide is it any documentation that showed that what they believed happening actually care  insured has no coverage whatsoever because the whole form goes poof the good thing about this case from our perspective do this that's not true we have here you have a policy form that provides the coverage in the basic terms of coverage and you have change the terms of the coverage to reduce the amount of coverage available to the insured you have an obligation to give them a specific affirmative notice of the change in coverage that didn't happen between the two thousand and eight and two thousand  need to advise the insurer now my worthy worthy opponent will say but they didn't know me it was a reduction in coverage or they thought it was a continuation of the same terms i understand with my operation of the law the two in this circumstance smores closely aligned with denny's money to remove the indorsement from the policy would not penalize the insured and we'll provide nature with more coverage in line with the policy than other alliance bold decisions which is that we don't want insurers to make changes in coverage and to do things that without having properly improved forms and without giving proper negative this year what it will read the whole point was we're not going to apply this rule formulaically and we're not going to apply it in situations where it cost the insured in its coverage because that makes no sense on a policy level and it didn't over rule days money for the earlier cases it left them all in place and that really controls here because it says if you don't if you don't do it the pot repairable if you broke it you own it if you didn't do it right then you're not going to get the benefit as an insur corporation put into that person so whether he was personally involved in this process in these meetings he testified has certainly to recognize on the process how hollow how i still works how the circle is work out how the circulars are the records