the assertion in many respects of the statue of limitations that arises from the one your limitations period each contract of insurance and as as what's happened in the corries case and against this background this court give you i'm green and that it doesn't make any difference to the outcome of this case whether california rules on the issue p ninth circuit won i think in the briefs there is its isolation well beyond that and they may not be correct so i guess my my question is just going directly to the point of whether there is any difference between the two that makes a difference in the outcome twenty three in mind seem to me to be claiming damages for the northridge earthquake as well as for exacerbation or separate damage caused by the by the attorney not necessarily with full investigation done at that point in time certain circumstances which arose prior to the filing of that complaint that is the denial by all states is that it was timely and that's what we got three forty point nine ultimately in the first place so i i think that it is a make a difference however it is not verified and certainly on its face one would have to concede in series of circumstances with a bill and all the facts again which are chronically in terms of it being deemed late by all state then the filing of this action then the dismissal in anticipation of arbitration which the terms could never be agreed waited two years and then they were told they were not class members and then the availability of three forty point nine i've called it a procedural minefield and they've kind of blown up at every every step of the way and so the difficulty here is to take the whole rules given the fact we didn't have any evidence introduced in the one nine hundred ninety seven actions the conventional rules have to be looked at in the context of what the intent of the california legislature was and passing three forty point nine to allow people such a the opportunity to have their damages addressed in the sun had they not done anything in one thousand nine hundred seven we wouldn't be here they would have had their claims so it's really ironic people who threw up their hands did nothing have had their claims addressed and paid people who try to be proactive and to help themselves not anticipating what ultimately would happen in terms of the passage and nachman of the statute now find themselves with damage they paid the premiums they complied with the conditions and the very reason why their claim was not originally of rest was too late have been addressed by the california legislature i would respectfully like to reserve my remaining time certainly thank i'd like to call the court's attention to the actual record of page eighty six in which judge shray made factual findings that based upon judicial notice that northridge earthquake damage was actually litigated in the connection with the class action settlement proceedings these are pages one forty six to forty seven one thirty one through fifty two and one forty one to forty two of the excerpts of record the california legislature made findings regarding the victims of the northridge earthquake and again the corys paid to cremate him they did everything they were supposed to do in some way again perhaps they would be be tter off doing nothing and they would find themselves in this morass and i think yes i i would i would agree with with my colleagues that there is a request here too for this there to to go away from this to total conventional straight line analysis to take in consideration a special statute that was passed for special reason this is  unprecedented calamity in our lives people are trying to recover from it the glories of the type of people for which this statute was written and they should have that opportunity to have their just unpaid otherwise