underlying litigation the district court drew an impermissible art between the fraud alleged in the nd amended complaint and the allegations in the declaratory judgment action in the st in the original complaint in order to deny coverage the district court's opinion page eighteen in the appendix stated that the allegations taken together evidence a scheme question is here and she sees them all on the page you're talking about she actually begins is over page fourteen it all arises out of a common set of facts plainly what has happened is to be determined and so nobody's been found liable but i don't know it seemed to me it did all arise out of this fundamental issue whether jane was cut out  of this company you know in a way that was problematic or your honor in its ruling the district court found that the dunkin brothers had the intent to do a wrongful reduction and the original complaint in doing that it construed where you know you see a finding as opposed to a description of allegations she keeps using the word allegations over and over again here perhaps there are good in its construction of the allegations construes them against the insured the document brothers in this case that is the only way that the district court could have connected the allegations of the nd amended complaint which were fraud and breach of duty duty failure to issue distributions failure to hold corporate meetings to a reduction of shares against duquesne there are other parts of the policy to the question before us is whether the insurance company got timely notice of this dispute such that its obligations were triggered and that's why the relation between the original complaint and the nd amendment complaint is even pertinent and the district judges finding that these are related enough is seems to me a fairly routine finding in insurance law you know you don't have to have it down to the cross the t s dot the i's it is fairly within the scope of the st complaint st complaint was for declaratory judgment and asserted th that jane's rights had been violated and the other side was going to contest that they would say yep you're right you know you've construed this perfectly they were contesting it so the insurance company had a right to know right well your honor it's our position that the st the original complaint did not constitute a claim i will let mr christianson address that further but if you look at the nd amount of complaint and the original complaint whether you can wins loses or draws on the original complaint you would still have the nd minute complaint and what i mean by that is there are different outcomes so in the original complaint jane and her state could when and have that twenty four percent that cases that don't work and you would still have the nd amended complaint which alleges that the dumb to mean brothers are not issuing distributions well if there is zero dollars coming out and distribution the twenty four percent of zero is still zero and on the other hand if jane loses and your original complaint and she has only ten percent and a court could then find that yes the gun to my brothers shows and proves that the claims are unrelated that there is nothing connecting the outside of the district court's findings that there was this scheme of fraud that the document brothers and gauged away and gene did not think about it in fact there was in the states you filed in florida by duquesne to go after those wrongful distributions those excessive distributions that jane received and then the allegations in the nd amended complaints are all after jane had passed away and her daughter who is the sister of the four document brothers is alleging that the brothers are now freezing out jean they are not issuing distributions are not letting her become involved in the business and they're freezing her out but as i sad you know jane credit has that twenty four percent whether it's by error or mistake bottle but if i could just quickly summarize as i stated the only wait for the court for the district court to have found that original complaints and the nd amended complaint are whether the initial complaint even constituted it claim under the policy on the outcomes that in a broad sense and in a more narrow and specific rightly remember what this policy is  regarding whether the decision was a twenty four percent or a ten percent shareholder so is it your position mr christianson that declaratory judgments just don't count if they allege some actual action was wrong so on page twelve of the district court's opinion she's looking at the original complaint do cain's attempt to reduce her ownership by fourteen percent done without the knowledge or consent of jayne done without providing consideration unilaterally taken and asked the court to find that she is the rightful owner invalidate the wrongful fourteen percent reduction but he wasn't that enough from a commonsense point of view d to show that wrongful this is what motivates her to say she may courts couldn't even give a declaratory judgment it was just an pfizer opinion so underneath this it's a step toward redressing  ownership is fixed by law it's as a matter of law she is one or the other she is a twenty four percent or even ten percent if you can cannot determine that any more than i can suddenly decide to give me ten percent water in facebook well i mean you're saying that but i'm just looking at the complaint as just you know actually to look at the complaint or the district court saying that the allegation is that you kane indeed attempted to affect her ownership share now you can sit here today and say well you know actually we weren't doing that maybe that would have been a defense you know we love jane we want her to stay at twenty four percent or whatever but  duquesne reduced her shares and i not to not to go in circles but the point i make is that that's the action alleged but it's an imaginary action we can't do that there is no so would you say that because somebody this complaint in the view of one of the interested parties has no merit that there is no coverage and that there is no we have to st ask is that act that is alleged something that could in any conceivable sense have happened and it cannot we can we can't reduce for ownership ownership is fixed karma so at heart th jut the clerk or judgment action although it has those statements is really saying look judge i either am or and always have been a twenty four percent or as you can continue as i am and always have been a ten percent the that fact is to decided based upon the legal reality of her ownership not anything that you can you did or could have done because we have no power to reduce her ownership legally that's just not something that can ever happen for ownership is what it is on i'm almost out of time i will i will point out the nd part of my argument which is the cross street is not even referred to anywhere in the initial complaint unlike the document brothers where you know there is at least some initial complaint result relate to ownership and you can and then in the nd amended complaint there are allegations about shareholder oppression in duquesne and then there are brand new allegations about shareholder repression individuals is crushed treats argument that there is no relation no connection whatsoever between the initial complaint and the nd amended complaint and i'm out of tires all right thank you mr cutter an timely report and the st question presented on any cleans me in reporting case is when was the clean made and then once the determination as to when the queen was made the point i tell you what concerns me about this this case the there are certainly would be plenty of instances where an insured might face something that might or might not be covered might seem like not a big deal and basically not bother notifying the insurance company right and i would assume that your client doesn't object to insurance who do that sort of thing if there is no coverage under the public the elements even if there's coverage but the problem i have here is that the nd amended complaint seems to grow the case exponential with new claims new parties events five years later and if i understand your position on the definition of a claim you into terminations as to whether it's related claims based on the allegations made in the underlying litigation well you know your position is that if they are in the same docket number they are related there it is the same cla but let's start with the definition of a claim is it your position and and are you troubled by the prospect that anything under the same docket number is the same claim i am not become let's let's imagine this scenario then supposed to play to suppose that the insured had tendered the original complaint during the pot relevant policy period and thirty four years later that complaint is amended with the way the nd amended complaint was was amended here you only insured them for that one year but now the claim has grown in essence beyond recognition would you still then be delegate the coverage to the strategic choice of the underlying plaintive and trial court about whether there's one case or two our position has that when that the claim is the  regardless of whether goes on for five or ten here there's is would be deemed timely reporting it in not limited by the timing of the conduct because the coverage here is for the yes you are subject to other issues such as that flow from the fact that at the point of the reporting requirements to make sure that the insurer the insurance company is aware  am subject other issues the issue in this case is not based upon the timing of the woeful lack of what what is based upon what is significant is what are the nature of the allegation to the allegation in some other completely unrelated company well then you would have to do the analysis to see if it was really even claim but in that circumstance you can see different arguments of the cleans or not but here the court allegations about the conduct in reducing change ownership in and then since the same to clear a tory will leave and then just builds upon and so even if the court determines that the fact that they policy limits corrected if they're related claims or related wrongful acts provisions which work harmoniously together serve a couple of different features one is that they determine they have little time left yes i think here are under the district court's ruling every time there is a duck literally judgment action or any other suit or claim that is made every single director an officer would seek coverage under dno policy just in case the case later more and like judge hamilton stated was a completely different action involving completely different conduct years later there are no allegations in the original complaint that the document brothers were the ones to reduce jane's ownership and that is why you are required to construe the pleadings in favor of the insured because we have no control over what the plaintiff puts in there and that is why you construe policy against the drafters in this case yeah and that is precisely why the duty to defend counsels argument and we'll go to him now since your time has expired mr christian i will just briefly comment that what mr cutter said was that all of this relates to the ownership in duquesne so that's the that's where you draw the related claims from the initial complaint to the nd amended complaint the nd amended complaint as relates to  a totally new industry that has nothing to do with the ownership in duquesne so even if we accept the proposition that the shareholder zero pression claims in the new complaint relate to her ownership in duquesne because if she's not a shareholder you can't across her interests and that the reduction in ownership in the initial complaint relates to your ownership in duquesne and the dungeon brothers are referred to in all of those things crush treat has nothing to do with