the producers of this and did the insurance company have notice of that there is nothing in the record to answer one way or another what the relationship if any was between the insurance producer  we would take that position but again it was never played it was never the subject of the motions or something ok first issue is whether any breach of the notice of occurrence provision by cobra on the policy holder deprived robin it coverage because only cobra had the duty to give notice of currents or claim further but once he qualified under the endorsement if we are correct the judgment below cannot stand and we are entitled to judge  cleverest reach to us but this would make their rights to coverage depend on kerberos action something that is contrary to the innocent co insurance and the reasonable and ordinary expectations of insurance if i can just briefly refer to the my salary case justice scalia no made the point better than we can make it it is only likely that a reasonable person would agree to an insurance policy which meets recovery under the policy contingent on the actions of another back smile paul as argument in this case my hollywood apply that clause without regard to the relationship that where is the law that says that that if a named insured reaches duty to notify under the policy that that then bars coverage for the additional insurers who have coverage based on a notice provision that we didn't have to comply with i mean that's the crazy thing about this case it's why this case is a mismatch for the policy conditions the there say the cobra has the duty to give notice even though corporate never gets coverage they can't get coverage because of the employee exclusion when their employee a sues them the duty to give notice is on the party that doesn't get coverage where it gets we are denied coverage even though we didn't have any duty to give notice in the first place the best not enough they're saying that the hall i can ask opposing counsel this question but you can't and the question i would ask that you ask him is when he has a chance to step up here is why would you distinguish in your policy between insurance and  at the very least at the very least we would suggest that the separation of insurance clause is him u s has applied and it conflicts with the notice provisions because remember that although we don't have the period of time twenty months ok that was sufficient so she never actually reached the question of whether there was prejudice to anybody and to be honest the way this was teed up we wanted to notice we didn't know about it for twenty one days ok first notices when the last it comes it when we timely tender that our response is we don't have to be the ones giving notice because a notice conditions don't apply to us so again that issue was never really developed and somebody judge and i think for purposes of what you want to assume in this decision i think you have to assume because i made a material i'm not i'm not here i'm not here to  greater benefit or coverage will pay for us cushier opponent does argue that the it's only one policy and you know if it affects culprit it would affect additional shorts like robin that are one thing don't necessarily know an occurrence involving an injury to the named insurance employee at a work site before they are surplus to pay for that's exactly what happened here the conditions section of the policy recognizes that additional shorts have more limited rights to coverage and because it more limited rights to coverage they are not in a position to know and cannot be expected to know every occurrence or claim giving rise to a duty to give notice mindful that it is a privilege not a right to address the court we are grateful to do so this morning and for all the reasons so forth in the briefs we ask you to reverse i'd like to reserve two minutes  asked by their own client the issue it is now but not bank mount holly stage and no representation on that certificate is attributable to mount holly there is nothing in the record to suggest that that agent's representations with no it's a it's a fairly standard kind of a chord form certificate of insurance of my recollection it is traditionally used in the insurance industry by insurance brokers as for quote evidence of insurance  by type written you know filling in the boxes they identify policies and such but there are disclaimers on the face on the ballot there was certificates that state that you can't write anything written documents saying that these people we need these people this is a new project i need this developer read it there's nothing in the record to suggest that and so you know you can try to daisy chain these documents together written agreement is is fallacious it doesn't it gets ridiculous it doesn't even exist if you can sit there and say i can f where i live just by telling you about it then the the concept of zero in the restriction of a written agreement requiring somebody before the last to have somebody identified in writing is just doesn't exist so i think that a glee destruction o asking them to do i mean there there is a separate book or taking undertaken been going on here with respect to its face of the school there's new people involved in every other part of the face it's been one of those people added these people mad how to get it done they just put it in writing and that was never done in this case where there's no recreation jack i don't know i don't know what typically there is a premium charged based out and there are also identifying this person as being needed to be added to my neck does not exist in this case it is nowhere in the record but the only thing that identifies them as an additional insured is a certificate of insurance which cannot create but the surface winds insurance industry in this state and other states as it involves the risk your risks the more problematic insurance who cannot normally get insurance through the traditional market so say you've got the language of schedule b says that reflects the parties to ensure that in addition to robinette cobra was required to obtain additional insurance coverage you got to get all the only documents that exist that i've written back to me that exist that has one tea on it here's the certificate of insurance which cannot create the coverage which is why judges are only ignored because it was a document created by because it's about their employee and there's an employee exclusion in the mount holly house which would preclude coverage for a direct action by that individual against coal the problem is that this was never raising it to you it's so simple i mean the issue here is we're not contending that they did not but they preached the notice condition with respect to the forwarding of sort of papers it's legal papers here when they receive them that's when he discussed the potential of a claim arising out of this accident against cobra is the potential of an event again action which would be brought by robinette or somebody else potentially person or to the contracts that we duties are that there are certain duties that are assigned to the named insured and that can in conjunction with the action against the company clause of the policy which requires every condition of the policy to be met before coverage be ok if they wanted to get a big could have asked for it ok it just because they didn't read it doesn't mean that it doesn't bind them and i think illinois was clear on that but this kind of gets to the argument that they make in response that how could anyone dissipate that you would have to rely upon the actions of a named insurer or some other party to secure coverage for you wonder an insurance policy and what i saw when i read that i really stressed my head because the best precisely well they did in this case  relationships between insurers which create the reasonableness that they would expect that there are certain things that that third part that i didn't ask go get coverage for me has to do the growth of coverage in this case is entirely predicated for edition insureds is entirely predicated on their relationship with that name and sure everything is derivative of that relationship governs even if they are true because they would be an additional sure that would be bound by the the actions of cobra the named insured in this case are one other point i wanted to make again now i think i covered this the again the the issue of whether or not cobra could have had some why ability perspective this action and that that could have happened because during the employee they certainly could have been third party then and they the relationship of why would why would be set up on those conditions requiring the named insured to give us notice of an occurrence as opposed to what additional insured and yet by the additional insured based on that notice well i think it's pretty investigate that and truly perhaps if there are additional insurance involved and while the potential exposure of all named insured is with respect to their curds and so that is the reason why rts have to forward suit papers now if you want to use the contractual relationship as the principle here that you are peddling why did they write the policy that requires that we as additional insurance all saw have to give notice when we're so the problem is they're making a distinction between a notice of occurrence and other types of notice you know forward not to us just to score yes to what is the definition of insured important in this case it's critical the policy distinguishes between you meaning the named insured and all other insurance fax ok we don't just have something all we have affects in addition to the other writings you put all those writings together whether it's a daisy chain or not doesn't really matter because we have a legal principle that a