wide presumption of reliance players must come forward with evidence that the allegedly false representations were uniformly made to all members of the class do you agree with that if so did the  this report deny classification because of the concern that there were different positions potential made orally to different consumers this court reversed indicating that because hawaii law went out to every single class a member of the senior citizens who applied for and purchased an annuity product that allegedly failed disclose it was subject to the vagaries of the stock market it was not only exact same disclosure document nothing could be farther from the facts that were analyzed after presentation to the district court and form the basis of that reason fifty six page decision in this case far from a uniform statement made to the entire class such as underscored the decision of the yama we had first multiple sales because not everyone received the document that supposedly contained some misrepresentation so then we come to the other type which is the omission if you have a duty to with that because to anybody it's an excellent question let me let me answer it in two parts of the issue i believe what the core is raising is one of exposure so first we begin with regardless of whether there were different marketing materials given to different realtors or avenues or just reviews and does that matter because there was there was some exposure right and therefore if you had a duty to you know to present some added fact regardless of which document you got doesn't matter then the issue is as it does because without without exposure to something then you don't get to the second level of you know you don't get the presumption that everybody in the class you know could have been relied or you will you have a presumption otherwise you have a statute that said if the company is run by a convicted felon you must disclose that in whatever statement you make and you didn't do it is the closest analogy in this case to your r's question is section three three two of the insurance code which came up in d s two as as i'm sure the court is aware section three three two however which is a duty for the insured and then it's a mutual duty to disclose material facts if i'm applying for insurance i need to disclose that i've had certain medical conditions what have you and it's a mutual duty section three three two appeared nowhere in the motion for class sort of occasion at issue in this case nor did apply in the reply brief filed in support of the motion for class certification three three two did come up in the years to which was a which was the pleading context the court reviewing  court did was look at the claim that we've heard today which was there were standardized materials that were uniformly percentage regular indirectly through realtors or to consumers and the court found otherwise and it was not it's not clearly for those findings which comprise the fifty sixth grader were not clearly erroneous in fact the court found to the contrary that there was not there was plaintiff his career is a classic example her realtor a friend of the time purchased it for her as a gift it mr morrison's real surprise just for him and the realtor explained that he made the decision to purchase a first american one and he was opposed to some other product out there because based on his customers experiences here her positive things these were it was the antithesis of a setting aside the lack of and turn that into a concealment like claim by saying you didn't tell people that was false that's the claim they've tried to back out of the affirmative misrepresentation claims they don't in fact they don't appeal those findings of the district court but they simply recounts them now all as concealment and there's no independent fact like the wheelchair example something like that that they can cite to instead what they're arguing is well there were there the truth of the matter was these statements were false therefore it's a concealment claim and somehow because it's a concealment claim we don't have to deal with the legal burden to show at class or some experience hearing they not a situation where as an excuse the first american sent out marketing materials consistently or on cases inconsistently that said ok we were peer replaced but then omitted concealed in addition to the grounds that fourth in the district court's opinion there is an additional two of that is asia in this case i'd like to address is the restitution model if any that was presented to the just record and not ruled on because she didn't have to get there based on the findings that she made but what was ultimately put forth in this case was the idea that have all purchasers in this class anyone who paid for policies in this class including the realtors themselves the idea that that there would be any thing short of an individual inquiry as to what other comparable and with it with the promise that if they got to trial they would somehow be able to show that everybody in the class likewise for business would have chosen a specific comparable model comparable product and having re