scott shore in the rash case we've discussed the initial application argument so i'm not going to discuss that in this case unless court has questions the primary issue that i believe is raised in this case is the issue that issue i can start there the district court never addressed the willfulness issue in any of the cases the district court ruled either on a proper party basis to the initial application basis in every case and we think it's appropriate for the district court at the very least to address this question first because willfulness typically isn't resolved on summary judgment it's a question of motive and intent and the district court gave no guidance and never even consider the issue and went right to the proper party in the initial application issue means knowing intentional conduct or a more typical standard of knowing or reckless conduct in contravention of the statute there have been a number of cases going both ways at the district court level was turned away from some of those cases were not go staff at least was taking the position that they were not there and increase international premium was an adverse reaction with respect to this particular case on the issue of  plaintiff's response to the summary dresser motion and in november two thousand arthur far had an internal memorandum that said insurance companies are also required to send adverse action notices meaning when an applicant does not get the best rate due to consumer reports under the federal fair credit reporting act so if the district court work to consider this issue in the first place we think there is at least a clear disputed factual issue that the hartford fire understood that not getting the best rate for having an increase on the initial premium was clearly something that was covered by the clear terms of the statute so for that reason i don't think if this court decides to address the w action and we did not pursue hartford fire because it was the corporate parent we pursued hartford fire because we believe that it is the company that takes the adverse action by setting the premium rates in the to the more expensive insurance company by hartford fire and the facts in this case are hard for fire has all the employees and they're located in one central operation unit that does the underwriting risk a one notices required the issue is if a party takes the adverse action they should be listed on that one notice if it happens that it's more than one party can the company can list all the parties that took the adver company make creates the efficiency and sets up the system that has all the employees judge brown thank concluded that that company as a matter of law by the way and not based on the facts could not take the adverse action and only the contracting company could take the action so of the statute which isn't directly before your honor and do you care so you could list all the companies come on notice much difference does it make whether you list one company or three companies as long second company even if the first one it's never noticed if that company did not give notice and all that company has to do is put itself on the notice and in fact the record number of these cases there's a list of several companies when they try to get  yes well maybe not if the issuing company doesn't have any employees and you're directed to the issuing company how are you going to follow up with them because they don't have any employees in fact call it the overarching company well it may be that an agent or maybe a person or a call center that's employed by hartford fire eventually you're going to have to deal with the appropriate company if you want to contest that the information was wrong and that the insurance company that took the adverse action should have taken that action and that's why it's important to direct it to the appropriate company i think i've gone far over my time a pleased the court there are two issues that i intend to specifically refer to in the absence of direction from the court and they would be both the willfulness issue and the proper party issue i'll start really in the wilfulness issue first if i may know there is an alternative really they can sue either through negligence and get actual damages or the costs to for willfulness and get statutory and they have elected to try and prove is a matter of first appellate opinion and we think as a matter of first impression the this case does not qualify for possible willfulness in addition there is a very short quote from over some fundamental questions you see them in here yesterday this is a very simple steps to our position is that surely the hartford should not be exposed to possibly ruinous and destructive statutory penalties based the court the fact that the insurance company tried to do the right thing in that we were not held or standard to perfection so even if the ninth circuit found that we had done something wrong with don't think we under the circumstances there should be a right to be wrong where it is a first impression without controlling authority and to to we should not be penalize with literally potentially billions of dollars of exposure in statutory damages from a statute that the trial judge has interpreted the same reasonable way  i would now move to proper parties in the absence of questions related to it's our position that to the plaintiffs got exactly what they wanted and that was a lawsuit against two companies neither which issued a policy they originally sued the heart for financial services the holding company that isn't even an insurance company couldn't write a policy of insurance of wanted too and the hartford fire the other defendant is an insurance company but is not even authorized to write insurance in the state of oregon and couldn't write the policy if they wanted to this is not a situation where the plaintiff did not know who issued the policy that's correct and we think there is one of those in with things that it is not at all uncommon for the issue in company to operate in part to affiliates and related separate legal corporations who may be for purposes of underwriting be assisting in some firm but that only mostly the responsibility if they've done something wrong we don't think anything was done wrong here but it would be on the issuing company not on  the purpose is really to give the consumer the opportunity to double check the credit report to see if it has any inaccuracies in we think the laws now presently very well designed to make that possible and the consumer rights have been protected brokers to where they might be licensed to write for two hundred different companies in hartford would merely be one of them and in the state of oregon only the one would be able to write the other policy and only one would be of the right to tell its policy when you say authority i suppose if there were an error in it was misdirected to a company that was not authorized to do business in the state that they could reject it and they would have to point out to the parent company as a practical matter did the parent company when they act so well in this instance hope for insurance company midwest the individual working for same person might deal in numerous states for different companies but i believe that the clean clear and called for by the actually are a provision would be one noticed the just a couple of quick points around