six and could be found on pages a thirty four through a forty three of your appendix when you can and scroll first got notice of the federal lawsuit which was filed on september twenty nin on october tenth two thousand and five on that very same day they tended to claim or they delivered the claim to a national union through with agent a i g domestic claims and these poor are the actual document that is weight thirty first two thousand and five it was it was a claim that only alleged that you can not miss all violated mr leonard's right i mean the a da there was no allegation in the claim that there precludes cloud coverage for the subsequent a b a the lawsuit or definitely not the and furthermore they made the charge i believe dated july thirteenth two thousand and five which is the second policy period so even if somehow missed all can be broken in the that even though it seems to be impossible under federal law it was still the second policy period but as to the company itself you're alleging that the first period would still cover her even though the first policy from in the policy that only required the notice be given a sort of practicable and we're talking about the federal lawsuit of the claims raised in that lawsuit and it's clear that they were given as soon as practicable and whether the issue of the holly to build an issue here is the wrong call related acts but if you look at the actual policy language it doesn't provide for what my opponents would like you to read into it it only says the claims arising out of related wrongful acts are excluded if they've been previously reported now that they could have been reported not if they should have been reported but if they had back have been reported and the exclusion provision of the policy and sections for c talks about related wrongful act but again it july one two thousand and five and obviously if you look at the e e o c chart excuse me lead it was trouble a bit in december two thousand and four so clearly it would after the continuity date of july claim it's not clear the other thing is there's nothing in the policy that says that all of the claims arising out of the related wrongful lack relate back to must be reported when a claim but i do state the proposition that the policy says that it's claims made during the policy period that's what the policy says and the federal lawsuit was filed during the second policy period so even though you see th well i'm actually arguing for both but i'm talking about when the claim was made the the federal lawsuit was filed in the second policy period the policy covers claims made during the policy period and that is all this battle lawsuit in september of zero five there was a policy in place and grounding there was not claims made policies cover claims made during the policy period the federal lawsuit was made doing the policy period now i understand that the acting gave rise to that but i do not believe the policy requires that you can also say all report the firing of listeners if only one letter filed a cla a i g adamantly argues that if you look at the policy it says they assume no duty to defend and the policy also provides that the insurer then handed defense of the claim to the insurance if the claims made if the claims made by for example leonard fall within the competence by the by the policy there is a duty to ensure the policy at issue here basically the policy the tox about who's go duty to defend is triggered that's not the not the insurance company the right to bring it back action or defendant or for the ration of right emily triggers the duty to defend and clearly on october tenth two thousand  jericho of the nature of this policy this is not a claims made policy i think that that understates what the policy coverage is with regard to this policy this is a claims first made and reported policy and i think  that's a significant difference here the policy specifically provides coverage and in fact states this several times in the policy but claims first made and reported during the policy period of the policy in effect at the time the claim is ma don't think that that's accurate or i think that if you look at the definition of a claim of the policy what they are required to report is fairly clear and does not require that they will quote every incident where there is to the potential practical you can take it you can take the position that that was the only requirement in our policy our part that is not the only requirement of our policy in fact with regard to notice the policy specifically requires that the that is not the situation with regard to as granting pointed out a condition proceeding to coverage is the requirement that the under claim state policy is that the requirement that the claim be made and reported during the policy period in which the claim is made  that that means that if the claim is not first made and reported during the policy period in which the claim is made there is no potential for coverage if there was no potential for coverage there could never be a duty to defend even if a to defend existed in the policy that i think that a decision if that was the reading of the of a decision on these precise facts by the bar i think that would be over reading the decision here we have here we are imposing because of the nature of the policy of requesting the pope would impos step in their argument this policy does not impose a duty to defend the national union and so to the extent that the court is concerned about that but the been the ruling in favor of national union in this case that ruling provisions dealing with tendering that case here we're dealing with express policy provisions that specifically delineate the the circumstances under which a tender can be made and that tender must be made within thirty days of the claim first being made and it must be made in writing to defend because the policy required a specific written request essentially a written request that we defend the defendant to be tried person out along those lines right in writing and the policy is clear clear policy is clear and that yes i guess i could cite all of the cases that so that a clear and unambiguous policy turmel is going to be enforced as written but i mean that is the fact of the matter that is what the case  posed simply on that basis because i understand the possibility of an amendment i think however that even if the court determines that we are incorrect concerning our analysis of coverage it further sir or you can under these policies the arguments that have been presented could not be regarded as anything other than a good faith dispute between the national union fire insurance company and you can't and then a final argument that i presented in my present i would like to again present to the court the trial judge ruling in national unions favor accepting all the arguments that were presented which are i believe identical to the arguments that national union has presented before this court and accepting those arguments under those circumstances gna and first reported in the second policy period it's just not there on the public health and wants to write something into the policy or he wants to write the american center's language into the policy but it's not there  that was not even directed to missile and everybody could not have been but that's no dispute it was not directed against missile and even if you look at the amended charge which mitten which mention the v p of human resources without even having the respect to the trigger of the duty to defend with respect to actual notice of the claim the national union is asking this court to apply the very gamesmanship the court rejected in centenary compan requirement it's a living by statesmanship that the insurer can play so the point sure who doesn't know the policy as well as the i'm sure it does based on the claim to the insurance company thinking they have coverage all of a sudden they say no no no the other issue i'd like to point out with respect to synthetic companies if you had a company's case with a big sister it if the insurer had tendered the claim in accordance with the policy terms well the brother was late notice or not within a certain amount of time report it during the second policy period it did trigger their duty to the fed with this back to the other matters i would like to stand on my brief but i would also point out that any elko the court