here kelly versus nasa especially insurance group number fifteen dash three six one eight god but if you actually look at the factors together there's a whole lot of overlap several of the factors cannot ever apply if there is not a parallel proceeding so for example you on the run you want us to rewrite was committed there the same thing goes with the six factor that he found will favor ascension as well avoidance of duplicative litigation if there is not another to see there is a risk of u the third factor which he also favored founded favorite station here he also seem to be confused about what that means so there's this notion that if you do not have a current proceeding you only thing that can well they just weren't and again because of this idea of potentiality if that were to be because they were we submit that it would be unworkable because i was actually trying to think about scenarios where there could not be a possibility of having a carrier be brought into no one case and and i don't know how there could exist inside of a rival policy it's responding to some underlying proceeding of some kind of wise it wouldn't be a yeah i don't have to think about a scenario where they would be but i'd submit it because it issue in the coverage case is always rather the policy the contra response or not they're never going to be a say that in your brief right yes or ok but that's wrong i think but i'm happy to be persuaded that i'm wrong because it's my understanding that the decision be initial decision wears for both sides would appreciate the chance to get the whole mess before one state court judge even if you've got two or three different cases filed so i think it's hard to argue against that but i'm to decline to exercise his discretionary me briefing there's still a lot of confusion as to how to apply these factors and i think that's the other important opportunity that this case presents is that the court does have guidelines for the circuit but what do they metaphor just doesn't fit in the sense that you have to have a state case in a federal case there would be no reason for them to touch the pending in two separate cores and it's just whether one should look at the other if you have what we have here which as a straight agent you know case the agent make an error in terms of time when notifying the dram shop here that has absolutely nothing to do with the proceeding that we're got here which is did the will have no impact on the sole issue in the coverage action which is carmen on a timely basis have a claim that was made against that which it reported to maxim within a certain period why doesn't the doesn't the maximum potential liability go away for carmine's off the hook yesterday goes away right so i mean if if i were a district judge or a state court judge and i was dealing with this whole situation i would probably to its own carrier so there's not any factual of opera or anything else that we couldn't present in certain circumstances but let's run out of time here i would just submit that to the extent that the court situation other than insurance coverage same thing goes with and so there is a state law i would submit that could come up in other situations but it's more right would come up and in the context of coverage because of