subrogation notice to fight in door and i just believe that that makes a world of difference under that the supreme court's holding in this role stated in the home insurance first purchase was there any evidence of that ch but she also was it she explained earlier i believe that early on aaa would have gotten the only traffic crash report and the reason they would have got that is to ascertain the name of the ok can you tell me why why didn't she file a claim and further why didn't the same bladder that was sent to nationwide go up to trip seven cents conflicts with the statute is void but it didn't address the other charge provision act ace which provided uninsured motorist coverage will not be available for a vehicle other than your insured and lets the owner of that vehicle has no other insurance applicable to this part and by the way the insurance also here the nationwide fine and insure vehicle has one which is under insured but the supreme court reason that that other insurance vission with that other insurance  eloisa farmers insurance company was trying to condition or was attempting to condition the uninsured motorist coverage of this policy only of the ability of similar coverage rather than on the uninsured status of the to the all parties ensure century insurance for the record reflection unfortunately i don't have the paid that there was a letter sent by aaa chicago aaa made a mistake they directed their letter to the wrong party that letter should have been directed to century but i think the point of this  is that is that the insurer variable kill it is obligated to tell triple in some form number one i am pursuing insurance which i believe was the insurance gas from filing a super occasional loss here we have a motor vehicle accident occurring seven twenty or two thousand is when the instant lawsuit was filed with the same in county circuit court on july twenty second two thousand and eight now i don't think the record contains the date of service until this declaratory judgment lawsuit was filed now what's the prejudice in many cases or worst of all i do not see that in the contract of insurance this notion of  ex all parties insurance carrier and that gives us time to see whether we want to file a lawsuit against the wall or intervene in the loss now she may have still had coverage with her parents we don't know she may have been at work f the time of this accident or somehow employ we don't know that would trigger additional as to what as to what one insurance company did versus what another insurance company might do let's say for damages for two hundred thousand aaa coverage was to fifteen nationwide's one hundred she got twenty from century right so let's say she's now down to one eight and it's all within the coverage of aaa is nationwide to contribute forty percent of that in this case with this excess quota no they wouldn't have to they would contribute nothing if it was within aaa for them absolutely they would be nothing unless somehow it exceeded th situations their coverage is strictly excess coverage they will only pay some amount over what other uninsured under insured doctors avail in this case the primary cover acts they should like to attend that is the period of time the court should look at this you supported by case law from other jurisdictions specifically the supreme court of north carolina in anderson versus all state that's to in this case waivers were fails unreasonably especially claim for primary coverage then an issue arose on these facts worse nationwide to provide primary coverage when it you before we go to rebuttal mr schmidt i forgot yes you something that i'd like a response to how was the plaintiff's posts we know about the thirty day notice requirement not on the availability or on the other insurance or it cannot be condition till the weather comes i'm sorry i cut you off i was just to say it seems to make your own contract with nationwide required to