definitively in the record because the filing of the the amended complaint is  tender letter is probably part of the declaratory judgment record but it was made certainly referenced in the in the petition but i'm sorry and which would have seen that but the affidavit that supported the petition was made clear that the first time state farm learned of the facts of supporting this petition that was november twentieth eleven and if filed its petition december twenty seventh about thirty days maybe less than thirty days for burning of those facts and that is the measure that should have been applied to determining the diligence one ritu one of the possibility that you have some possible liability or duty  has no propriety no relevance in the class action trial court this force you know petition is the only mechanism that a party like state farm has to challenge deficiencies to the actual judgement and he coverage issues that can be raised not air in that respect it was that was the stipulation period that was presented to you and it simply entered with the question of if but there were no the important part is there was nobody in before the trial court on the summer sixteen twenty ten to point that deficiency out and that is a significant deficiency another deficiency relates to the notice sent to the class there it was admitted in oral argument before judge hoffman that the notice that was sent to the best noticed at the saying that this is they needed to get this done by a certain period so what happened was there were mistakes made cart corners were caught so the class action period did not even include the name class representative we had a notice that the best news they could send w process and what is required for class notice but there wasn't anybody in the in that position because mr shane had stipulated to this agreement class council wanted this agreement and needed it in place sooner rather than later so that they could fall then nothing can be diligent and the harbor case is really rendered meaningless because that case state farm is and is basically the same position as the insurer in that case and the court found it in the insurer and the case had standing because it was injured by the judgment they were increasing the actually present so if it did in a sufficient manner and again that would be something that would merit a rain band to at least confirm that all of the requirements for classification on december sixteenth twenty temper satisfy there's no need for the court to present these there was a sloppy incorporation by reference where each account said we incorporate the previous paragraphs and obviously apart from violating the civil practice rules since you can't have multiple claims in one count appeal is opposed to some of the issues that may be coming up to this court when the if the coverage cases appeal is the fact that the declaratory complaint in the coverage of cases filed on feb twenty eighth  twenty or less and that hash the judge an order entered by the trial court in this case on december sixteenth so for state farm stand up and save it you didn't understand the basis for its challenge diligence i don't think that's true i think the analysis that the trial who are deployed was the right analysis for determining whether a party seeking fourteen or one relief and a party such  a state farm that would need to intervene do so do so within a reasonable amount of time but what about the argument the trial of course he's saying took the position well it was obviously going to do is defended you full reservation rights and fighting about the current issues simultaneously or later they could've done that they didn't do it and so they made their bed now they have to live and i think th i apologize if i was unclear i think that the benchmark by which time should be measured is when the insurance tendered the defense tender the lawsuit and presented an opportunity to participate public policy in cases it minutely largely astolfo cases like elko the trial in present incentives for insurers to come in and defend their insurers whether under class members benefits but really you're here for state farm and i think the best another problem with this procedural posture i mean this court held in the holes the life case that the the insurer head is a protection for circumstances where they've decided not to defend the parties get together and make a settlement and somebody comes to the insurer payment there is a  safeguard there where the plaintiff has to prove that this element was reasonable in the coverage case before before they can recover and that's pole come in and watch the cases it went down and then when they received a copy of the settlement agreement decided that maybe they should get involved because now it is their own article as opposed to  again i think that the way our system set up is that if the insurer wants to contest issues wants to participate in an underlying case they're given the opportunity to do so scientists to contesting coverage issues  would you say so superficial appeal if it's probably the sickest corporate course right there but then you're saying then automatically in every case no matter what the allegations of the complaint would be it would be for the insurance to always come into the case of the reservation of rights right that that's what they should do with every single case because it's the safest course it's certainly the safest course or honor and again i think the way that the tendered to an insurance company and he is sure this company gets to make it's business decision because that's what the what the business is that it's in but even if the core would agree with  case and become part of me in order to raise these issues state farm here is disavowed any attempt to intervene and i'm assuming they've done so strategically is a way to get away from the use of