issues though the main point for this court the main issue before this court is whether it two year suit limitation clause in a policy for employee dishonesty to start to run from the discovery of that dis employ dishonesty defendants have argued that we failed to preserve this argument below argues for raising an appeal and i'd like to briefly point out that we haven't  discovering his employer's investment the question of whether there should be a discovery rule implied was talked about extensively below as we point out in a reply brief and the question of whether there is a discovery rule inherent in the one thing i want to make clear in this case is what this this particular suit limitation clause is not it is not a suit limitation especially limitation clause required by orest them for two to forty that especially language into this particular insurance context we have a specific stick with different kind of insurance here it's dishonesty insurance insurance purchased by the insurer to protect against deceitful acts by their employees accepted by their very nature are going to be concealed reading to come in that it would be ridiculous for an insurer to agree to an insurance policy for dishonesty that effectively cuts cuts off any just any sort of coverage beyond two years from when the dishonest actually occur i don't see at least as ridiculous that's three seventeen or to thirty five and in there they discuss peace or a seven for two to forty provision and discuss why the discovery rule doesn't apply there they also address that the point about the organ tort claims act imply a discovery rule this case does not involve a limitation on a tort action as did the case under the o t ca that's where the course in those goes cases were able to draw on various projects you guys were not able to do so here we would submit that what the court saying there is you have to look at the per one one for one it's a decision that the court relied on below and the defendants in this case have already admitted that there seems to be a difficult decision to overcome and they offer no real grounds for distinguishing except to say that two year suit limitation which was the basis upon which the just for court granted summary judgment in favor of american economy the case that has been presented to this court is very different from the case it was presented to the district court judge particular decision of the oregon supreme court ten times you might get the impression correctly that i thought that's what the case was about that's what the just for a court was told the case was about the nose prejudice rule far implied within it because even they admit it's not there expressly it's just a different case and for that reason we believe the argument presented the only argument presented on appeal hasn't been preserved now let's look at the to y enforce of according to its terms because darn it it's just so one fair it's so unfair to us essentially it's a public policy argument itself policy of the state of oregon is the fended and they can make that argument but it's helpful if they can identify some source of oregon public policy that says this kind of suit limitation offends public policy the problem is that the oregon legislature has enacted just such statutes of limitations over and over again in the brief glad heart versus oregon vineyard supply company dealt with the product liability statute of limitations in oregon and plan part the court dealt that statute of limitations runs from the date  providing fire insurance in more versus mutual you know a lot of the oregon supreme court said that suit limitation the one we're dealing with here does not include the discovery rule and glad heart it's told until a cruel of the cause of action if we don't have either of those here now there's been some argument about whether or not this suit limitation is required by oregon statute or simply there and honestly i'm not sure it matters very much because it's in the policy the wording is clear it's in force either way but it is in fact limitation required by oregon law policies in oregon that include fire insurance have to recall have to include this provision now a little bit of insurance history in a very little bit if there was a time when fire insurance policies you buy you bought a policy that's all it covered nowadays it's very rare to buy simply a fire insurance policy alone you buy a property insurance policy that covers lost cause by fire and multiple perils in fact  usually aren't set forth any more so what we have here now is oregon's court saying that the policy provides fire insurance and other property coverage those other coverages are subject to the same mandatory provision and it must be in the policy so when the for case i think we had a methamphetamine house that where the damage occurred this limitations period passed before the homeowner ever knew about it and that was the nature of the coverage there you know herman versus valley insurance burglary doesn't have to be a fire it just has to be a property insurance policy that provides fire coverage  councils are points about the statute or a seven point two two forty and its relation here i think i will just come back to my point you have to focus on the nature of the coverage it is relevant whether this is required or not required by statute because if it's not required by statute then we're talking about a different