but you have a case where the conduct of the agent that is associated binds the principal to this third to this third party it is the principle that conveys to an agent and to to this other person for example her boss he be the insurance broker the appearance of having acting as the principals agent to other people and therefore what the principal did he the insurers the reasonable understanding that notice to the broker was notice to its insurer i don't know of a single case that says an agent can create a peer in authority and behalf of its prince and he or i would say to reverse the summary judgment that was gr denying him that it's safe and because everybody knows that if it's your agent then of course notice to the agent it's noticed of the principal but you're saying that the associate it was their parent agent that there was of course in conduct  know about this quest bot it doesn't apply because there was no adverse interest the cases they cited if you look at the facts of the cases you need an adverse interest between the agent and the insurance company for the principle to not apply but let me let me get this right associated in that exchange that you're just described the trial judge said first akaka should be bound by it should be should and shouldn't be exposed to liability based on what happened here yes and and to that it to the extent that associated complied with metra list requests not to do something not to send notice the first chicago i mean why isn't that sufficient the agent was acting in the interests of persia cargo as well as  typically yes and the producers would send it out to the insurer for review so let's make it clear let's go all the way then you and meeting that associated was the agent for her chicago not at all i think there's nothing in the record that shows that associated was at all why the two items that were just brought out by justice court why doesn't that establish as a matter of law on a parent agency between the two or at the very least even if they beat you to take them as being the apparent agent it doesn't matter where there was a conspiracy to keep actual notice from for chicago and your honor had brought up earlier what principle are you drawing to give us cases is right on point regardless of what happens the do the details the specifics of the telephone conversation between mr harrison and mr asquith the end result is the same and that's why summary judgment was appropriate because the question of fact has to be material and at the end of the day the end result of that telephone conversation was that for chicago would not receive notice whether you believe mr harrison's testimony that he wanted to wait and see and develop a what case solved from providing coverage to mold up when he has no obligation to notify because in this instance he doesn't have to  other nothern sure going to the palace and he was completely unaware nobody ever told him at associate that he had coverage under this if i'm understand your question or mr molder if he seeks to have insured and oh yes so how does how does first you bought the how can they be absolved from offering him when he doesn't have an obligation to give notice and that notice for chicago never got notice and i don't think that that's disputed here mr but he did give notice he not to for chicago lp gave it to the agent the apparent agent there's testimony all over the record out at least add something to it if mr molder had given notice to associate and not having gauged the conspiracy to deny notice to first chicago we'd be in a different situation we're chicago could not deny notice we would be in a different situation and i think for chicago's position at that point would be solely that associate is not their agent right but i would be their backup position but it would suit me we already have a point where there is  according to bill of course the case where it's unreasonable e and on excusably late notice it doesn't you don't have to show prejudice but even if we were to have to show prejudice thirty one months as a matter of law is prejudicial and i did say those argue in their brief that there is no requirement for another insured under this policy to give notice what is yours to do their gift if an insured rather it's the named insured aboard an insured seeking coverage under the policy that heard in any regard i mean he was only covered by him he was covered by insurance he was covered by his personal auto insurance policy maybe it was a little low for the purposes of the damages that resulted to wilson but i mean he was cases that i read the book is means that you have to show that she would have done something differently regard to the underlying case what with her book would differently well it would have been permitted to do any sort of investigation regarding the accident and whether or not there would be a coverage position to take thirty one thirty one months after the fact you know what this is disappear memories fade it's just a mistake to give this one different thing that they would have done it well their investigation would have been sincerely what you think would have resulted from the investigation that was it already know that mr maule there was a fall no i think that wilson didn't suffer the prejudice but second rule never not because thirty one months after the fact i mean i'm sorry that's an attorney and say ok it's it's not what you're looking for but we'll never know because thirty one months after the fact you don't you just don't know what you could have found out but as you know this requires that there be actual practice for at least some semblance of prejudice i think we require more than you just don't know some cases require information and all that information would be in permission that persia cockle would be able to obtain it that's where the differences between your cases and where the prejudiced like  didn't investigate his carrier headed best a geisha no but everything that happened so you would be able to have all that information so there would be you know in the like the cases that you're talking about where the courts have held that all this time interview that just strains credulity because it seems odd that naturalists would conspire with first chicago to deny its own ability to obtain coverage but explain to me why why for chicago would agree to be bound by the tru