somebody there's a judgment against the insurer and insurer refuses to pay hard seems to leave your party could seek to garnish that obligation similar to going through to after a bank account it's money can go after the money allegedly that you hold however as i understand the city has never made demands for you for and then the number one and there's no contractual liability at between you and the city so there's no third party to step in the shoes of the city to go after  garbage that is our argument and if that's the case then the charge of using supplementals jurisdiction and garnishment was in the air let's assume we get there ok and so therefore we reverse hundred two of the insurance code and so if you're if you're right about the supplemental jurisdiction or the lack of subliminal jurisdiction if you're right about that we would be versus you know what what happens then how how does this play out that would be the end of the gar anything and sounds like to me you know the tail end of this game so until somebody plays a hand until something is paid it sounds like you're saying there's no obligation for you or you're not even in this game until something happens  nobody's paying here yet yet they're asking their leap frogging around the city if you say well you got the deep pockets and you've got the insurance companies who want you to pay before there's been any determination made here through the bankruptcy process this now ongoing which is never even  action is limited to the extent of coverage afforded under the agreement vandenberg talks about the equities of the situation but invented very you had a clear agreement among the insurer and the insurer that we're going to go arbitrate liability but reserve all of our rights regarding coverage and litigate them separately so you had a clear intent there by the contracting parties that went into arbitration that they were going to reserve those other kinds of coverages until later the district court relied on the idea that silver stakes didn't have any role of the the expected or intended language in the personal injury coverage well be intentional discrimination exclusion for land use planning exclusion was drafted to cut out an entire activity i mean entire sphere it's not having much like the was expected finally the court talked about intentional discrimination and said that there's no way to know whether the jury found intent or not we think there's overwhelming evidence of intent at least in this record but even under the arbitration in order to settle these things if you come back ten years later and you had a pool like this because of a lot of other consequences the pool is not made up of the same exact cities from year to year some cities will even make it some coverage somewhere else they may join the money from because there they have this contract to ensure he will not general sense the city and you're saying if you allow that to happen the city with our contract of insurance has been denied under arbitration but now in it seems to me that the  now precisely what we're saying is that they are holding policy which provides benefits to soldiers say how do you say to the judge and garnish those funds i mean how do you garnish a policy there's no funds there for you to guard as you're saying they have some after it i mean they could have the presence of a holding company like the court is they've got money to spend liquidated for your good for your damages and you can go get it well that's what her margarita yes that's what we so anybody's got a claim against a parties intended to benefit the judgment creditors in these situations that's why they put that provision in there we would have never had any opportunity as a practical matter i don't know how you have traced whatever play out other than the way that it did here because obviously the time of arbitration you because they have a contract with the city regardless of the terms of the policy so that's a heck of a policy i'd like to buy one of those i mean if that if that and if you're in say under the terms of our policy there's no coverage and if there's been  time that the action occurs overcover claim arises i thought one of the injured party who may not receive a judgment for many years later so exactly what happened here at that point they have rights like social security i mean months it would be an interesting way to enforce federal judgement because the way i've read these cases is absolutely do not have to go to a state court to try and and so you can does the policy give you the right to sue them directly for that i believe just so you're suing directly for a violation of a fair housing act judgement does the fair federal question just whenever anything to do with the fact that three million dollars or three million dollars a matter working from it from gambling or prostitution is still three million bucks and you're trying to collect the harsh truth we're trying to collect the in the federal and carry if they are trying to claim to ensure compliance by virtue of a letter they would be required to bring up to the attention of the court in the action and to show that it complied with the requirements of nine ten which the limited language of a hand and the writ of garnishment is not such an action that they can determine that coverage and no because the writ of garnishment assumes the debt already exists for one thing and for another thing  bankruptcy right now but your is a final judgment right and i'm saying that the direct action clause in the conditions portion of the memorandum coverage is conditional on the third party establishing coverage you only get to recover to the extent of coverage and this