this morning and the one thing that kept crossing my mind was that if i were the panel and i was looking at the briefs i would want to ask myself you know what type of relief are you seeking what he can are you looking for us to do here and the answer to that question is relatively simple although it may not seem as much from the briefs are requested be for you to purse anti man with instructions to allow we would just wait to see it out as opposed to reversing and ordering the stay if there is some issue with respect and implication down the line there is another issue the parties have to reach institute another lawsuit redress from gross yes your honor we would we would be able to file a complaint territory judgment seeking a declaration that we had no duty to indemnify the church against any judgment that was entered against it in the underlying case why wouldn't that did now and i do not believe that it was jumping the gun in l annoyed when church company does things presented with a complaint that potentially alleges coverage in this case there's no getting around the fact that the underlying complaint  allege that the pastor was acting in the scope is in point of the church of the time which if true triggers coverage peepin is in possession of information in fact passerby's deposition testimony would provide that he was not and we're here for one reason really to inform are sure that their potential no coverage on the policy and in doing so we have to name the underlying or point it as a nominal but necessary part and that puts that party on notice hey there's a potential coverage issue here and that party needs to know about that if we don't do anything in this issue reservation price they may not know the construct of the potential covered just under the policy on our motion for leave the palace second to complain i didn't want to end up here i really didn't and so i saw what was happening and i just i reached out to the opposing counsel's and i said why don't we just stay the case in lieu of the sanctions motions  us you know proceeding with the litigation where you just allow suman our complaint and we'll stay the case and in stay in the case he can will agree to defend the church in case country mutual just defending him now hops off the defense thought that was the appropriate course who i guess we point is given that it's a discretionary hearing and i don't understand so you want us to find that we are in a better position in the trial court to decide that issue  direct the trial court to state i would by you yes that would be our request for you to do because we believe that procedurally it is the proper move and it's also practically in the best interests of all the filed a motion pursuant to two six one five to this mess and i didn't necessarily by going to tell them how to react to our complaint but i think that if it were me i would've probably done something a little bit different and there would have agreed to stay or i would have moved her judgement on the pleadings in my favor saying you know here's what the complaint says you all was a duty to defend and i want the court to make a decision on that issue not he so the way that we look at this is from a practical standpoint it makes more sense to a person or mail instructions to stay rather than just a firm and then just have the parties half the litigate this again later on down the road your honor counsel i will be very brief this sometimes i wonder if the courts and the justices read the case ahead of time it just a statement reassured my wife but she you guys get it you understand this case just by the questions so you've done your homework really there is no controversy this is a direct judgement action there is no controversy because they filed a lawsuit against the country they filed a lawsuit at that judgment action against st paul and country says will accept all except the defense no reservation rights will will do that and now they want to pursue yes and the problem is they're not on the hook right now to defend they're not on the  operating his vehicle in the course of business or whatever you're going to have to decide an issue this fundamental to the underlying case which the law now i say can't be your honor i think if you understand it he first grants motion to dismiss without prejudice instead of amending at that time they filed a motion to reconsider and he denies that that motion is as well and then they three d seven twenty six i believe and dix does this court recognize that where as here you have an underlying complaint on that makes an allegation that potentially alleges coverage and you have a declaratory action that's filed seeking a declaration of no coverage and there are facts that are common and that they're all to me in both cases to the proper course of action to