coverage they claim to snooze exclusion in the policy that he was an employee and that as an employee he was not the x s policy didn't cover for the reason for her proves because of the word workers aspect of this case you had worker's comp even as soon and that's why she became involved in approving that simple case of individual defended individual plaintiff there's that underlying coverage of a million dollars claim clearly in excess of a million dollars what triggers the excess carious obligation at that point because as i look at it what we have here i can't figure out what would predict your company's obligation to actually step up to the plate and discretionary question whether the claim is involved is a distinction when radiation is present and there is a judgment or is a settlement with an agreement for judgment  we'd be talking about in that instance but now it may seem scenario the primary carrier wants to release if the primary carrier gets  released under those circumstances and is then brought because you haven't stepped up to the plate can you is it your position that because of that release carrier in that situation would have a duty to it under under the law in massachusetts would have an obligation to exchange a payment poor release of its policy holder that's the obligation they have the possible or i don't think they could say we want to release of our liabilities as a carrier but not ask for it and we have a policy so but but what is the effect of the release on your obligation and your excess policy i'm trying to figure out how i this policy which is this different company let's assume you know there are cases where the excess ozzy isn't the same company this is a different company i just trying to figure out what triggers your obligation and one protection what protects somebody in the position of these plaintiffs trying to take the underlying base policy and yet proceed with a point what should they have done differently matter because it imposes a liability a requirement to pay compensation as damages so hard with this or i would say it is that and if that had been done if there was a settlement in this case which s disclaiming cover share which are not being discussed today that those are merits issues the threshold question is do we need to state a claim or in this case you not only do not having judgment but you have the stipulation of dismiss that protects him and by the way the underlying defended was be indemnified wants to be protected as well so it seems to be less there's some mechanism which gets keep in mind and i do my time but the question here is not only did the judgment not enter not only was there not an agreement for judgment but if the corner examines this settlement agreement and as the district court did what you will see is that there is no commitment on the part of any of the underlying defendants in that document to pay any money whatsoever to the state of the city of mr survey it's very very clear there is a settlement painted defined in that document and that payment is for one million dollars of the western world policy if you search that document you will find no other payment i think any money flowing from anyone to anyone it is a singular one million dollar primary when it's payment so even if we get past this question of is there a legal obligation to pay and we can look at this contract and say is there a circumstance in which just the settlement agreement without a judgment can give rise to that liability on the part of the excess carrier you cannot escape the conclusion that this document doesn't do that it does not impose even a contractual commitment by the underlying defendants any of them to pay this is somebody any money in fact it specifically says she will undergo circumstances pursue them for money and it for says that in lieu of the payment there is an assignment of the rights they may have and they specifically say in two places in the agreement we're not promising you that we're getting anything with this assignment we're not seeing that there's any coverage there to be obtained from the american policy why is this important because i think if we're addressing this you counsel had pointed out that there was this that disagreement accomplishes the task of creating a legal obligation to pay damages on the part of the underlying defendants the whole premise is that the settlement agreement accomplish  there is under the law in massachusetts there's an obligation to to pay as damages did not arise in these circumstances and furthermore the argument they make with regard to the contract giving rise to that factually it simply doesn't at all