the principle of story to sizes is the foundation of our judicial system it cuts lawyers in their counseling of their clients it guides lawyers in how they present and try their cases and it is the essential foundation on which the courts make decisions there are two issues that must be satisfied here to affirm the district court's judgment number one was the requirement under the policy or sending in promptly legal papers when you're served with them a condition proce and number two did mr hutchinson strictly comply with that condition perceived the law on this point only those two issues from the arkansas courts and indeed from this court interpret ing arkansas law is very clear it was a condition proceed and and mr hutchinson did not strictly comply the law on this i believe was st crystallized by judge on a notice provision and this is beyond a notice provision this is a requirement that legal papers be forwarded to the company that that constitutes a condition proceeding under arkansas law he also concluded that the arkansas law requires strip compliance there are three critical decisions of this court which took the jurisprudence that judge miller l out and articulated clearly what arkansas law is on this point the st case was decided in two thousand kimball vs union standard and that case made very clear that conditions in a policy which require the submission to the insurance company of the legal papers is a condition proceed it also rejected in that case the waiver argument which the appellant presents here it made clear that there cannot be a waiver unless it is a known relinquishment of a right and that was clearly not the case here let me pause for a moment in this discussion of the law to briefly go over the facts i think that mr hodges misstated them obviously he appellants focus on the may  th telephone call mr hutchinson had been served he calls and gets the harmon solution group service he never tells them in the context of that call that has been served with a summons and complaint for the transcript reads she is suing and then he proceeds to read from what he characterizes as a report from the lawyer he asked yes and this is this is just myth in the parlance of non legally trained person if someone says they're suing me aren't they essentially communicating in the normal  language of average people that i've been served with a summons if they were legally trained they would they might state it that way but when the never each person in describing the fact that they have received service of some is described it is they are suing me for haps i mean i think that is one reasonable interpretation for she is suing me it's also a reasonable interpretation that he's received a demand  letter from a lawyer i think lay people use suing in a variety of contexts but he never informs that he's been served more fundamentally the policy requires that you promptly send the legal papers to the the test is not literal compliance it is strict compliance i don't know if there's a difference between that or not in other words he gave them my and in fact he gave a lot of numbers policy numbers this and the other thing he gave them everything almost like is mother's maiden name which is your insurance lawyer knows that's one of the things you have to do when you call your brokerage company once your mother's middle name and where did you get married policy and at what point might stricter word strict be given your real world the definition well we're dealing with contracts that we're dealing with them in the context of decisions of this court which analyzed the strict compliance requirement and i think that's the only way you can do that the decisions of this court not only in kimbrel but that of course kinds of commonsense indicators that the insured had given notice to the insurance company telling them that a civil case said then filed and informing them of the nature of the ongoing dispute but and those were sophisticated people here of course we have a requirement that you promptly sinned in the notices and legal papers that you've received that there is a call made and instead of the transcript we have before us suppose that the transcripts that as i have missed i have some legal papers sitting in front of me and loves and says summons on the top of it and the insurance certainly it would be different we don't have that kind of communication here that would put the insurance company on notice that the insured was folding a summons and complaint here mr hutchinson refers to it as a report he never refers to it as a legal complaint at some point i think that you might have more legs to a stuck will or waver argument if the insurer actually said i've been served with a summons and complaint and i'm looking at it now i don't know we're not in that case but it doesn't obviate the requirement the condition proceed under the policy that use promptly s i would not want to argue that case before you if the call center it said don't send us the summons and complaint i think that's a different that's a fact that we'd have to grapple with that didn't occur here quite obviously a what's they all found in the room this statement by your company's own representative but if you are required to send anything in they'll let you know how to do it no your honor i did that in what did your company's representative or what did your company do to follow through on your company representative representation your honor that was it purely in the context of the accident police report he never mentioned s aerial might be one where a stop will but they have some application but it can't in this context because there is no coverage under the policy if a condition proceed into it's not complied with  promised regarded well let the record speak for itself about what was said in that context but the fundamental legal principle is that a stop will cannot extend coverage and if this is awarded the judgment i'm not sure how that relates to the to the a stop all argument your honor but words if you're stopped from denying coverage what more you would have provided a better defense on the merits you provided no defense on the merits did you because you were innocent in there was the default took away defense of the marriage that's correct so that's not extending coverage it's extending the or enforcing the obligation that you were under under the terms of the contract is because there is a condition perceived and to coverage which was not complied with applying a stoppel would ask stand coverage where it does not exist and i'm not getting into the distinction between defense and indemnity the a stop cannot be applied in that context because it would extend coverage under the policy which is not there because the condition proceed was not complied with and that is fundamental in all of the cases from this court the facts are more important than the law and isn't this a case in which the facts are clearly more important than the young doctor in a strict compliance and you will say no because you're representing a company just like i did back in my benighted this is the practice