where i know that is the case even opposing counsel agrees the trial judge and her two words were clearly erroneous in one of the three key rulings before the court and we're really struggling with i'm disagreeing with this what should the appellate court do about or in the late eighty's and early ninety's the case had been litigated fairly aggressively and parties were starting the settlement or actually two basic lawsuits going one is what we call the boeing and they were trying to recover monies from tree island and other parties that had had some share in the cleanup and parties were settling with boeing and the american target rupe one of the parties that did settle was based side and they entered into a a check to boeing for over a half million dollars in order to buy peace and get out of this lawsuit we would still isn't a trial judge changed his mind did not follow the same order that he entered in favor of a site and kept trail and steel in the case out of liability in keeping trail on the end it is possible for this court to reverse the tree island order and give us the benefit of the base that protection but i will concede that then that would be inconsistent with the first of those three key orders the not only as good but only if the court upholds the order that council votes council agree was erroneous to let they set out the order they're not here i'm very nervous about doing something to them when fault act and the case law that says that if there that when you divided responsibility among the parties you look at all the solvent non static parties you look at their shares and here where everybody would be volume and you include that if you look at all of the volumetric way shift of this particular site trailer had about seventy five thousand gallons which was one fourth of one percent and as result of the trial court's ruling trelane was held responsible for denominator those defendants who were sued by unocal who were not established to be in are solvent the court had data about their volumetric share it should have been included i don't think we needed we managed to have further findings and what their shares were that was before the trial court they should simply be in so then there's no their prostate is only for anything i think that may be attributed to them with regard to those people but nothing may be attributed to them if you haven't proved up in the first place the argument though is that if tree island paid more than its proportionate share it having sued name those parties could have pushed them like unocal did you obtain their fair share of what it was required to  stand with a spy why can't we go back and say at least have to be in the army i'm not disagreeing that it wasn't an unfair outcome but there were a lot of things that were not fair to all the parties in this case it has settled that is another way to get base sides volume and without dealing with the problem of she lies and based i served with these appeal papers and i think that may explain why we did not bring base their survey sites with one is to include a side in this much as we sit here today unocal settled with bayside and presumably has and has agreed to accept responsibility for basic shares then tree island i would get the benefit of them being brought were a different judge who or complete retired it's a very straightforward mathematical thing to do the parties agree on the numbers it's just simply a matter of do you or do you not include a site in the denominator and do you or do you not include in the denominator do that it's like well of course if you're going to do that your honor we also ask that you do it equitably and allocate contribution appropriately why in the world were tree island and the other defendant in the case want to benefit un