insurers ok right my client seneca insurance company is a coke primary insurer on the two risks the lynwood property and the riverside property as to that cohen sure position and i have complaint and your complaint says that we we cancel our policy effective a date before the accident that's an allegation in the complaint is it not it is ok i'll ever seeming that allegation is true which i get to do because you mean doesn't that mean you weren't covering him on the date of the actual this is an instance in which there were pleadings and the alternative was show me where in the in the  show me where in your complaint you turn it if we say we cancel the policy no we didn't show me where you said no i think that would have it will have a violation but that's a separate issue show me where in your complaint you make the alternative allegation that the policy nonetheless was in effect on the day of the accident i do not have a complete with me right now but it's in the equitable contribution know that if you make an equitable contribution claim and you say well since we were covering them on the same day somebody thank you or next time when you come to argue dismissal of complaint might be a good idea to bring the complaint with you alternative right now i'm sure you're putting in the alternative seeking equitable contribution looking for a factual allegation in those pleadings that in fact you would not cancel your policy as you represented in the first part of the complaint  well one thing it has to be borne in mind your honor is that according to preexisting case law the complaints that the complaint is to be liberally construed and all implications ar ising from the complaint from the allegations are to be treated as true so having said that paragraph twenty five says upon becoming a seneca pleasing alternative that  becoming aware of said losses seneca performed its contractual duties and indemnified the insurer no doubt no doubt whatsoever that you did that no doubt whatsoever that you paid off on the policies even though you tr even though you try to characterize it later is inspiring of the policy my question is where is the allegation house me in this complaint to draw any inference that you didn't cancel the policy if so you can pay it off  and cancel it actually actively nothing stops if seneca is admitting in paris twenty five that it had contractual duties and it is saying that it didn't council so i think your answer to my question is there's no such allegation in are what our firm got the case we were presented with an assignment document the assignment document says what it says and we wanted to be as open and frank with the court as we possibly could and i don't think violating is really claim privilege well that's true right there in other words in other words you can't answer the question that's right thank you you're right it strikes me is as your client to have trying to have its cake and eat it too i have no idea why they retroactively cancel the policy why they just they couldn't cancel it under the accident they could cancel it three days later they decided for their new good insufficient reasons which you can't disclose to us that they wanted to policy to be canceled retroactively on a day before the accident and having done that i'm not sure how you client contribution suppose that you're not something other than a volunteer volunteer doctrine of equity which says insurance company may be all fouled up but they did pay and they ought to get the money back from the primary shooter does help me on that yes our client was not a volunteer your honor our client paid the claim several months before that assignment tell us and so we're trying to figure out since you took that litigation position how do you now get to say what we paid pursuant to the policy and on the day to the action when we filed the first amana complaint there was a question as to the validity of the assignment if the assignment is invalid then we cannot assignment is valid then i understand why you may have played alternatively here my question is if the simon is now it does not do me or equitable contribution claim well if every single word in the assignment  and my opponent has said that certain words are not valid she lost on that issue don't you and she's very good at what she does too by the way it's always good to have a good  so that takes us to the breach of contract rest and seat and there you're standing in the shoes of your insurers i'm sorry you're standing in the shoes of your insured spread for i've always thought that was just a neat little phrase  put aside the issues were brief here's my question your insurance got paid they have no what damage did you insured suffer here did they pay more for your policy and for the one before under california law and by when he when the incidents occurred they had to pay for two policies and i don't know whether or not the the alleged bad guys am co gave them back the money they paid when they canceled their policy or not but is that what you're seeking the difference between the course of the two policies that's one thing there were a number of items of incidental damages that were part of the proof in the lower court because it was a summary judgment proceeding damages wasn't what it was because if that's all you're seeking my guess is ten this case didn't suffer any damage from not being pain or for their well we were there for several days there were several days in which there was no insurance whatsoever and your client your other client seneca in if we're going to say that the assignment is solid gold right because that's the only with money so i'm it's not so with gold you don't have a contract with then and that money that was paid in connection there with characterisations i just want a yes or no answer your position is that this is that seneca as the as soon as the insureds claims against tampa can now recover two hundred thousand dollars on their behalf well that's the nature of an assignment there are no other words if it were yes you should want to work buying a claim they're going to get money the answer to you my question is yes correct the it is your position the answer to the question is they got money that's no no the answer the question before we close i don't want to just with you but really it's a yes or no answer you think you can recover on the half of the insurance all the damages they suffered from the fire and the other property damage yes yes because we've paid for it and what are you urging at all that we consider what you paid for they collateral sources far as the insureds damages are concerned and therefore not cogniza well from my standpoint that's actually not relevant and i know that i never did but for your sake they i don't know the exact reason i know that the underwriters got together had a discussion and decided that they didn't want to share the property if they give a reason for gas at the time they did not because they technically cancelled within the first ninety days it just didn't go into effect because the insurance broker continued to ask for extensions of time to find a new policy so people have you i have not ok i just want to make sure i understood that i guess i just have a couple of things to say with respect to the equitable contribution cause of action i think the court gets it right that the facts pled are what the facts are it's that the policy was resend it cancelled retroactively and no equitable contribution cause of action can be had at lest there are co insurers both liable for indemnifying the insurance on the policy volunteers don't but these people are somewhere in the middle from my research all of the insurance law cases with respect to equitable contribution are that there has to be two insurers on the risk and i didn't go outside of insurance law to be perfectly honest i don't think i can answer your question us why does not give rise to claim for a contribution well i mean that in that situation we also have to decide whether or not the policy was actually wrongfully cancelled but that's that's not where the district court got to you support said you had to be on the on the risk on that day in order for it and they're saying why should you be so limited his it's a nothing you did you did wrong and we had to step up and do right and we should not be able to pursue you to make sure we both do right why what doesn't that's little bit little bit less learned way phrasing the question why shouldn't we recognize a course of action for equitable contribution in the circumstances but i think in terms of equitable contribution  i understand a little bit more of your question now that they were a volunteer and a volunteer doesn't get a cause of action cause of action contribution while you say they were a volunteer they had and they had a contract there was a risk there was a  goodness of their hearts he paid the speakers they had covered you covered the risk later some people figured out some fancy way to we characterize it and they may be stuck with that but surely they want to volunteer  that they were trying very hard to terms of the facts they actually did not end up resenting the policy i found out much later that they attempted to flat cancel the policy pursuant to their underwriting file the policy was not rescinded it was flat cancelled shows when the policy is issued how it's cancelled at cetera it was not retroactively cancelled or rescinded the underwriting file clearly shows that it was flat cancelled which is generally what you do when you issued a binder and you're giving a quote for an insurance company flat cancel that quote what does that mean in terms of timing of their risk when their address is a flight canceled before they pay the money i know they tried to flag cancel after they paid the money and after there were risks and that's not pursuant to california law so then the underwriting file was in an attempt to flat cancel didn't happen why are they even mentioning that that's not in this case it is it's life or summary judgment i mean no but i mean the i thought that your position was that the assignment agreement has a when all of them say retroactively to the first date they rewrote a policy to november day after the talk so your position is they did something retroactive they may have attempted to call an expert it may have been why correct but it doesn't matter correct so if you have to get new stuff in the record from the motion for summary judgment to when you're going to contribution claim then the district court in appropriately dismissed it right oh i just was correcting everybody because i did alleging my my papers to say that about the flight cancellation and i didn't want to stand here and continue to say other than the fact that the first amended complaint alleges that information it turned out potentially not true ok so the  and or a calculated few d h and the question is whether which statute of limitations applies so tell me what sexual relations are the contract because they're trying to enforce the contract they're trying to force the insurance policies and if you want to enforce the terms of the insurance policies then you need to abide by the terms of the insurance because what what they're making in the end is a claim that you should have paid us on this policy and i think your your colleague just confirmed that fact that what they're seeking was coverage und enforce the contract and sue at the time of the anticipatory ph and waited until there was an actual breach of the policy and you have a choice between those two things and if you decide to wait and see if there's a breach of the policy policy reasons behind it and part of that is because they don't want claims to run stale and with insurance policies you can kind of see in this things can change witnesses can be lost if you have a fire and you fix you can go fix things and repair things without ever giving the insurance company an opportunity to investigate i mean that's essentially what the public policy is behind it