the morning mia please the court summary judgment appeal raises a single issue construction of the reporting requirement in the two thousand and fifteen claims made and reported policy although it is undisputed that the insured who i will refer to as in fact disclose the underlying claim against her to landmark during the reporting period the acclaimed supplement to district court determined that the claim supplement as a matter of law could not constitute a report that was in error for three reasons st the plain language of the paul it seems dictates the outcome in this case that the district court misread it i'll get to that in a moment nd the district court conflated the material reporting requirement with the policies non material notice provisions found elsewhere for example the district court determined that a report is not a report and less there is a simultaneous submissions that is not only unsupported by the policy language it is in fact inconsistent with texas's notice prejudiced scheme and rd the district court relied on a policy rationale derived entirely from out of jurisdiction authorities that have no application to this case and in any event cannot overcome texas principles of contract instruction that govern because it's always best to start with the policies language and we believe it's crucial here i'd like to start there there are three principles of contract construction that we believe control in this ca primary position is that the ensuring requirement requires a report to landmark and critically it does not define the term report there has never been a dispute in this case that the plane an ordinary of report means to convey or disseminate information that not even address it did not get there and we believe that was error based on some of the provisions that relied on determining that a report is not a report to answer your st question with respect to whether it's odd to report in this way i would respectfully disagree with that because the policy if the posse language was different perhaps but here it's sad to report to landmark and this court's decision in lexington really determines the outcome of this issue and it's consistent with texas law the insurer made a very similar argument that lost friends which this court described as computer generated spreadsheets with relatively scant information i would submit less than what the client when it provided here that that satisfied a written notice and there there was even a written requirement in a contract that we don't have here but that satisfied as a matter of law written notice claim apartment the court said look you drafted the contract you included only a bare written notice of claim acquirement were not going to apply into the contract a format to which the parties to not agree and when you're putting yourself in the shoes of the insured and you have an application that says have you been sued you check yes and then it says please submit a supplement loss runs and she does so on in a queue asli and then in fact it says have you reported this claim to us and she also checks yes i don't think it's unreasonable for this to constitute a report and this  perhaps i did prejudice with prejudice absolutely whether she satisfied at the requirement that there be a submission of stupid whether she requested offense those things whether she did that at a time that did not purchase them or interesting there is the same as soon as practicable requirement it's couched in the potential claims context in part four of the policy we know that that's a non material provision from prodigy and from this court's decision unless there is also what the district court relied on in part four of the policy is please send claim information to and gave two ways to do that and that's really the short relied on that and then it relied on a policy determination to it judge jolly is speaking to is do we do we require that ordinarily is a policy matter that it goes to a claims department i'd like to address both of those st with respect to the contract there is no contractual tie between part one the interim agreement that sets forth the covered services in part for is very different from some of the out of jurisdiction cases that the district court relied on in that landmark was on today where those cases said i want you to report in this specific way we don't have them in this case we don't even have the term report used  part four and when you read part foreign contacts it actually makes a lot of sense you have a provision that says you have to submit soup a person says demands again non material information and then it says please send plain information and it gives these manners how that type of information is going to be in writing and it makes sense that it goes that way and of course the claims department would be the portion of the ensure that would need that information to interpose the defense with respect to a report doesn't have to be in writing and insured could pick up the phone and call and say i'd like to report a claim landmark is telling you today that insured could not do that under the policy they wrote we believe that is an unreasonable position to the extent there's an am we believe it has to be construed in our favor more than that we've got an internal inconsistency in the contract even to the extent you're going to rely on part for part or gives two methods it includes the attention claims department doesn't nation on which the district  so heavily relied and yet the cover page gives three methods the snail mail option does not include the attention claims department designation on the policy point i really want to cover that i think it's important a claims made in reported policy and the texas supreme court focused on the bargained for benefit of the report in that context has determined whether the as soon as practicable requirement was material or not so what is books because they are able to ascertain their risk and set premiums on sounder actuarial footing i believe products g s exact language on page three hundred and eighty of the opinion it cited a case fairness and read rate setting is the purpose of a requirement that notice of claim be given within the policy period who sets rates it's the underwriters it is ironic in this circumstance where the actual bargain for benefit of the report is so that the underwriters may set rates that we're in a case saying as a policy matter you have to submit this to the claims department now we can see that there are some out of jurisdiction authorities that superficially stand for that proposition but they do for a critical reason they almost exclusively involve potential claims or incidents or occurrence that could give rise to claims and courts have said and in most of those cases by the way the insured also disavowed having awareness or knowledge of an incident that could give rise to a potential claim so there was a consistency in consistency in the renewal application itself and the court said you know what we cannot divine from this inconsistent application you're putting before us the insurer cannot divine whether it actually has a risk and then it's deprived of its benefit in starting rates and so what it did was imply a claims department only rule to solve that but that rule is not relevant here we're talking about the an embed u s disclosure of a representative saying yes we were generally aware at that date that there had been a lot of professional liability lawsuits lodged against the insured so he or landmark got its bargained for benefit and it's  day extended reporting period which expired on june th two thousand and sixteen our position is that this slaughter did not report the claim until almost seven months after the policy period expired in the extended policy period expired she didn't she sent a letter on march th two thousand and seventy were some formally asked landmark to she reported the claimant asked for coverage under the policy so any argument to begin with that there is some kind of ambiguity is completely erased by the fact that mr larkin who is a lawyer could read the policy and figure out how she was supposed to make a claim because she did it she just did it seven months after the policy expires still comes down to prejudice doesn't know your honor we don't believe so because of this reason our position is you don't have to show prejudice if the ensuring agreement is not triggered and that's our position and that's really what the judge said because there's two things in a claims made report and reported policy that are critical st the claim as to being made against the injured in the policy period and nd the claim has to be reported to the insurer within the policy period in reported policy is that it's a bargain for coverage that is only it's limited to the time period that the policy exist so in other words the claim has to be made and reported within the policy period so if you were to adopt the argument of the appellant's here you would essentially let the policy go much longer than the policy period because here is what happens just like they they're arguing here the insured can put s information about a potential claim in a suit in a renewal application banking on the fact d that will maybe that maybe the carrier won't raise my premium or cancel the policy or do anything based on me providing some information that's exactly what happened here if you read what miss lauder going to actually put in the supplemental i have or in the claims supplement she said that there was a lawsuit but that the borrow are or was in the was getting the money to settle the case and that there would be it was going to be resolved with a really nice and no liability ok she reports it but d in terms of just that basic information but she did she since that st to the underwriting department and then she waits until nine months after the policy expires to say wait a minute i want united states that we've been able to find where any court has said providing information and an insurance application is sufficient for reporting purposes for a claims made and reported policy they can they just think wh coverage is supposed to be for the time period where the policy says if if what they say is true then like i said insured to provide some very generic information and they're waiting until after the  district court judge said look you have to have and this is texas law that you can't just look at one provision in a vacuum without looking at the entire policy and there's many cases that say that so you have to look at the what this report mean in conjunction with the notice provision of the policy and the notice provision of the policy says you need to provide this information to our show right and here's the address that you sent it to at the claims part that you jump just look at the word report in a vacuum the position that you're taking here now if you wrote your policy accordingly and we we believe we did we believe the policy but you know i mean you could see if you could put all of that in terms of the mandatory reporting these are the requirements know well again your honor i think that when you look at what the the word report in conjunction with the notice of claim provision you can't just look at the one word you have to look at the whole thing when you say it's that were cited in our brief unlike the district courts that are if you provide information to an underwriting part of the reason you're providing that information and that that's requested in the application is because the under adult arbonne d is trying to figure out ok how what's the exposure here to the insured should we raise premiums should we renew the account should we know under new the account that the function of that information is just for risk evacuation it's not to say hey d i need you well our position is that the report has to be considered with all the rest of the policy language and again it's not a frivolous or right and it's a slippery it's a slippery slope because if if the underwriting department now is going to function as the claims department then i dreaded department i guess as to sift through all these claims and make the decision about whether or not to report the word report does not define that's correct but there isn't hobby decision in the united states like i said where the work court has said reporting to an underwriting department is sufficient for reporting the issue here because if they don't if lonergan did not meet the terms of the insuring agreement and we don't believe that she did then notice claims and issues and prejudice are not an there it was not as soon as practicable therefore there was no coverage but the claim was reported in the policy period we won that at the district court level but vs east texas medical case that they rely on ebeling again a different scenario kind of like prodigy there was another that was that was a claims made policy only it was not a claims made and reported policy and the issue was whether written notice whether a last line should serve as written notice there was that there was no issue about whether the insured actually complied with the insuring agreement  and that's what our position is and that's really what the court in the district court said they didn't meet the requirements of the insuring agreement because the claim wasn't wasn't properly reported so east texas medical is just it well then we would go away and marco in a sense from that day poor poor the date she submitted the information in the application despite the fact that she didn't ask for a defense i don't know how those two positions can be justified taken from all to our position where they may not all be on point they are all favorable favorable to our position there's not a case out there that is favorable busy to us to their position if there was they would side but there's i don't recall your honor there being any cases where it just says report but i do know that a lot of the cases just like the district court judge did look beyond just what's in the ensuring agreement so well this is what they have to do in order to properly report here's what the notice claims provision says in terms of where to send the information and what to include and many of the cases that we cite i think link that requirement that you go to be st made during the policy period and it must be reported during the reporting period our point here is that that occurred based on the undisputed facts of this case because the claim supplement reported the claims landmark i believe the district court's own words that it contained a concise synopsis of the underlying dispute sufficient to apprised landmark of its subject matter in progress and we know in fact from the record that landmark has said yes we were aware that she had been su as a result i don't think that it was while there does have to be a report we believe that that requirement was satisfied here and we believe the purpose of the report is so that the underwriters could in fact set premiums premiums and we know based on the record that the landmark underwriters  increase your honor i believe that if the contract tied part one to part for an otherwise didn't include internal inconsistency that i believe that that could help i do think there would be an interesting question under texas law of whether that would again this is no model of clarity and number of ways but if they had done so here i believe the parties could and should contractually be able to say this is how i want you to report and this is a material part of the bargain i believe that they could say that of course that did here i'd like to turn back to the claim supplement i heard opposing counsel discuss it as generic in fact i believe it included more data than what was submitted in the lexington decision then there was a reference to the two thousand and seventeen letter from lonergan that requested a defense i'm not sure if i'm hearing in a stop the argument based on that to the extent there is the fact is that there had been several communications from landmark to multiple of the parties in the case saying we're not going to provide coverage because you didn't comply with the notice provisions in part for so it's not all that surprising that she then requested her defense in the way that they said here's what you have to do but we know under the texas supreme court's decision and proper in the houston court of appeals decision in hudson that the request for defense has to happen no doubt about that it does not have to happen during the reporting period and we know that you can actually go to the hudson decision at seven  dollars it's set in the the issue there was the insured had never requested a defense and he had never submitted suit papers and the court said here we must determine whether the city who was the effective insurer in that case proved prejudice as a matter of law and of course the court held that it had because that request never came and had to be really was a claims made in reporting decision because the ordinance said report to provide notice to us as soon as practica but no later than five days after the accident so that decision tells you what texas law requires that is a prejudice inquiry with respect to the out of jurisdiction of dorothy's and whether there's a reported case in our favor there are got the sides if you like them he's correct that we did not cite them the reason for that is we just don't think any of these are relevant they all involve potential claims they involve different policy language and we believe that texas principles of contract construction give you the result that you need for the question that's before the court today here and final point i make is i'm here opposing counsel to say that perhaps these have to be cured during the house during the reporting period the non material provisions if i may finish