a that's not who signed some of these contracts actually that that is true my client signs these contracts on behalf of them well where in the buddy of the contract defense now if that's not the insurer what are we doing here well the party that i represent is an english underwriting agent for the insurer and if you're an agent you're not we're going to get straight now in this case well i think and i think that's appropriate your honor and if you look at the policy of insurance you'll see my client's name on that policy insurance it is it is issued by my client on the half of the underwriters and when you mention that it was contract yes ok and then we don't get to the contract until we get to sixty policy schedule sixty seven is at the start of the contract it says insured or sure grover that would be the allegations below against my client that out was that my client was bound by this policy even though the insurer a g s matt harris was not there those were the allegations that were a necessary party to an interpretation of a clause that says we have to send this case to the high court of great britain well it would it would be in that i would i would view it that way yes your honor but my client was issued as the underwriter and the and the argument was made that my client had an obligation another writer to something that figures out how much to charge somebody for certain assurances that action is not going to happen the allegation that was made against my client should have been the paris group that should have been the defendant that was not one of our defense so the question really is if if you were not a proper party and the party the chill of been there in order to have the contract construed wa how is this going to be collateral estoppel a pretty ruling where there was nobody there on the other side because my my client is the agent of that party and collateral stock and work two w first against my clients what happens we have a we have a liability policy or whatever but there has to be some some proper party there to defend the suit before you can have collateral estoppel there i mean if the only you that would be great and the part of the problem though is that before we ever got to that issue in this case we had a determination by the district court on false interpretations on a motion to dismiss and that issue was in a long tail on it as long as any statute of limitations work hard on the flow if we get sued again and they say well you know we really think that that my client the underwriter overstepped its bounds and was in fact obligated under this policy and i raised this binder down the road and it's sitting here with them and so i do believe that remains an active dispute i don't think i think we no longer have a case or controversy in front of us and  that i certainly i certainly have seen plenty of cases where for whatever reason the actual controversy the main controversy between the parties becomes you know that's to deter me differently from that when you already discussed and i have said your ruling whether that would still be vimy even though the party that litigated that was not a proper party to the case the only proper party wasn't present whether that decision combined anybody that may be tied up in the happened is the fact that the appeal actually was started the original feel i think came from the summary judgment denial and we were at that point required to appeal as well and there wasn't so there really was a full blown if you say oh we're going to dismiss are appealing go running back to the district court the district court has no it's not required to do that and you can't you cannot dismiss your fields like a lot of the nice work has already said that that is where your part i would appreciate it i think that you know i think the parties did the right thing here they tried to settle what they could and they're trying to get this aspect of the rule in which i think it's clearly erroneous and could be very damaging to my clients and their interests procedure where we can get this this or vacated we do not have to face a collateral stoffel problem in the future because i like the most important thing about this is that people understand that there is a notice to ourselves in the outside world about whether these types of provisions supreme court's ruling in bremen and i think this court in the richard's case richard's versus lawyers questioned whether or not the supreme court really wanted to go that far on and has has another eloquent discussion of the issue indicating that that the supreme court did not intend to limit its analysis and bremen one other argument i would really like to bring up i'm not this is not a waiver issue in my view this is this is an application in the front of i mean it doesn't even start out saying who the and she got her years in fact in violation of california law in that respect but you know if you're just doing fundamental contract well i takes two parties and all we're trying to