while unless there are specific points you would like me to address i will focus on the following three issues first whether the superiority and predominant requirements of rule twenty three b three have been that turning to the first issue the district court certified this class under rule twenty three b three and only under twenty three b three twenty three v three serve a cation is appropriate only if meets for burden of showing that common questions predominate over individual questions and that a high as action is superior to other available means for resolving the controversy a case require this separate unification of each class members individual claim or defense a rule twenty three b three action would be inappropriate moreover when individual rather than common issues predominate believe that it was fair for the district court to certify a class without finding that mr bell was actually a member of that class and that's the issue one of the issues before the montana supreme court vishy presented stacking to either decide the six motion on that issue or when she certified it to the month asprin court to wait till they rule but in any event we believe that that is one of the issues before this panel and it would be appropriate for this panel to either reverse we think your program begins to reverse because you have to get the horse in the car right or and you have to decide that she is a member of the class before you can decide that she's an adequate representative but we also think that there are issues under twenty three be three that will remain for decision the right for decision now and we believe that and it seems like it's the new rule that's been set up so that there can be an appeal of a class certification in something you know in cases where it's permitted by the district court or rather sought by the party so here we've got this case just you know who we may have to decide whether it should have been certified on the record before the district court i don't know if we can we can hold that and wait for the montana court to make our ruling or even if that's going to be before us in the record before we rule so but if we were to remain at it to the district court for any fact further factual development with the district court be advised to to hold off until the montana supreme court decide i think the other is like i don't know if i'm being clear let's assume that we thought under the rule twenty three the certification had to be reconsidered in light of any issues but in addition we should wait for the montana supreme court that's already the track that he's on is to wait for that that's  us not doing anything for the montana supreme court the size there was recently filed in the trial court a motion to intervene by a few other class members and that has not been ruled on because it's really didn't specify any detail what issues were common and what issues were not found and then make it clear predominan occurred were incurred within the three year time frame covered by the policy all of those are individual issues that need to be resolved in this were both individual cases if you determine if there is any breach of contract to her  in this case because superiority if that requirement cannot be satisfied if you have a face devolving into all these individual trials again i think that is inserted decision struck that you're on is that there that she's asked how she could take a class members in the future she said only that she would do whatever my attorneys tell me to do if ever there was a case when a class representative had improperly surrendered her responsibilities to counsel this is of your place my name's alan garvey ever represent christine lehrer both and a number of other members of the class who are not named in the complaint let me ask a question here i mean i must say that ordinarily i would not think there'd be much of an issue about the adequacy of representation under rule twenty three and i don't put a whole lot of weight on someone saying a list of their lawyers  it just one one class representative here for this class as opposed to more and if she's not in the class if the montana supreme court says she's not in a council was we characterized it as a question of whether she belongs in the class for he's a member of the class but that's just jumping ahead to the merits we can say that about any class represent this class representative many fail ultimately on her claim or on on one of the defense team issue that was certified as to whether she's in the clear there were a couple of questions certified b we should look at the record as the court construed it at the time and will twenty three gives the court broad discretion to to decertify to change rulings to add claimants that's exactly what happened in the us supreme court decision  coverage just like an insurance company brings deck actions all the time where the question of how the claims of the evaluated is not before the court how these claims should be evaluated farm and paid by state farm to the mass amount of the first level of coverage such that the legal question of have they triggered the second level of coverage which is the legal on the line they're not in the class so if you're on it it's really a declaratory judgment action of coverage that's what we want to determine that these people are entitled to how can they but they're not entitled to coverage of the going to actual medical expenses that were caused by a covered incident by definition in the class everyone does   the district court even if you're not contemplating it at the district court's order and sort of find the classes contemplating that there's going to be fact finding for each individual in the class this when the judge is reading that be like an ordinary reading of plain language that if you're asking your class in order requiring the insurance company to pay that that means that you would need th your complaint and get the class certified on that basis and then on appeal argue that that no damages are being claimed i can't see how the judge could have reached that conclusion based  refusing to pay reasonable medical expenses incurred under the stackable covers that we didn't pay the expenses we owed that again brings into play all of these individual issues as i've outlined exists and if there was individual claim expenses covered under such taxable policy coverages together with interest there on under mcdonnell in this circuit and all cases with which i'm familiar that is a claim for money damages certainly a claim for free judgment community i mean all kinds of money for relief your honor briefly referred to the campbell versus state farm case by the us supreme court just a few months ago which is a court has done many times