three minute stand rebuttal if time permits please i don't want just asking this court to reverse the trial court to a spark a determination that the trial court lacked subject matter defended by an insurance company is exposed to a judgment and excess of policy limits the insured can enter into an agreement with the plaintiff where the insurer confess its judgment in favor of the planning plaintiff exchanged it not to execute and the signing of the insured drives against game surance company including any extra contractual claims with the none case doesn't say and this is confirmed by subsequent supreme court precedent which is the stress con case the on protected agreement a potential lack of coverage meaning there is enough money in limits but some question about whether the claim falls within the grant of coverage or whether some exclusion applies cannot as a matter of raw form the basis of not agreement and that's really the seminal issue that auto orders is seeking to have decided i was seeking that decided by the trial court and what we're seeking to have prevented back to the trial court to have decided the moment the glass entered into that agreement constituted a breach of the policy and created the type of direct and immediate harm to auto owners that makes the claims the case with the case about whether a statute for hitting the use of campaign contributions was constitutional the richardson says that it was unconstitutional the state objected and searched the declaratory judgment action correct that in the colorado supreme court case the argument may by the insured is that we could enter into this agreement because we were we are not deciding already of the non agreement and that question is not on cert and and it's really not up at all at the trial court or anywhere in the state represent us so you could say that not that not one of the issues before the colorado supreme court i don't believe so judge i think the response to well st of all the the opening brief and that the supreme court has not been filed and so i'm not sure what they're going to say specifically i'm not sure what we're going to say because it has been filed yet but if you on whether an insurance company can intervene twenty four it's not the same and there's elements to intervention question but they're not the same as as whether agreement itself is valid or not there may be may be related but they're not being decided and that's really that's really the question that you raise judge is are they being decided in this big court action and the answer to that is no this court action is not going to have any questions well let me be at the risk of maybe repeating the question but to get more clarity on what the colorado supreme court need to conclude that sierra glass breached the insurance contract journal or to say that auto or nurse had a right to intervene you know what the supreme court needs split there's a national split already on the contingency issue some states say when an insurance company has issued a reservation of right it's interesting the litigation is contingent because it's contingent on the coverage question other states and i think fully colorado when an insurance company issues the reservation right it's the sufficient interest in the underlying litigation to permitted to intervene so it's not about whether the  agreement itself is valid under colorado law the issue that the supreme court is deciding is resolving that nationwide split on the contingency question and so  if agreement is valid would that affect your ability to intervene with in that airline case that they the fact that sierra glass and the association decided to enter into a valid agreement if that's what someone decides to owners would still argue that it would be permitted to intervene because one of the things that auto on it is trying to intervene to do is to give a fair judgement a real judgment decided in a true adversarial proceeding which did not happen and would never happen to go have a real trial and to go figure out whether there's liability and it's real damages not some made that the insured and the plaintiffs come to and so even if the agreement is valid you can still defendant and so the entry of the agreement was with why we intervene insured the insurer has a right to intervene or not and that that depends on whether it's sick considered by the state court as to contingent interest which would not allow intervention or more significant interest too address whether they could intervene because what they want to intervene i guess it's just to intervene no but to get a being to do what they want to do which is to have a jury trial on damages events already occurred that are needed to decide the declaratory judgment klein regarding the sierra glasses alleged bad faith or each other words  there may be reasons for the district court to back off and you know kamikaze stanch and exercise of discretion as to whether to go forward with a declaratory judgment action but court to decide the issue orders is saying look we think that that breached the insurance contract so i'm just not seeing where where rightness comes on like i can see other reasons as i said for the district court to back off and the bad lighting that happened and that happened back even before the non agreement yes so in terms of the terms of the relevant underlying events that all happened sierra glass didn't breach because a lot of owners breached st why couldn't you just raise that the right and i guess i'm just wondering does that make a difference in this case since auto owners receive what lead from the colorado supreme court presumably it would unto the judgment by taking statements inconsistent with what they were taking the declaratory judgment or simply no record evidence of that they've never asserted it they've never stated how they could be prejudiced that they've never stated how they would be prejudiced and as you glass would defend itself in the underlying case which takes me to my next point which is how the underlying case would proceed and we have an example and it's the if you thought the case and that case the  allowed united fire to intervene they went back to the trial court the only thing that happened in court is the judgment got vacated the agreement still exists the trial court so  there's record evidence of that from the state court in the cause of a case so the notion that the supreme court is going to decide that this agreement is valid or not is simply wrong the supreme court is not going to decide that issue the supreme court even if it gets remanded and the trial court is going to presume that that agreement is valid it's the underlying case has nothing to do with the validity of the non they were entering into the agreement is that owners acted in bad faith so that's the essence of the case but calling out a raw is clear that bad faith claims don't ripen in this context until there's a final judgment and and that point of this whole case and that's why the case is so important because if an insured has allowed to enter into this agreement it necessarily subjects the insurance companies and so that's why to be right there has to be an entry of judgment an excess of limits for there being and give rise to a bad faith plan because the bad faith claim is based on those principles of law conversely cooperate is different it's purely a contract claim and so we're not inconsistent the defense and if they win i'm sure it will be a lot of case or something that they will be able to use but it's not inconsistent to suggest because there's some policy difference if it's the same thing that we're doing it just happens to be a breach of the cooperation clause as opposed to some coverage defense i didn't hear a b but because i do my question is assume that your deck action is allowed to go forward in federal court when you when what happens to your desire to intervene in the state court action it would be abrogated presumably if we win outright and judge jackson or whoever says