why do they want to see the thing out why do they want to see it's not a question of whether we want to want to see it but what happened was the council for storm trackers who are understood full well that was the insurance company's money on the table suggested peg want to the amount of damages goes up in the negotiations on the basis of literally nothing other than the presence of an additional insurance policy that is there's no more clear changed on us during this during the arline case and and that's you know that's the way it goes but the one thing i can say is given itself assumes that the insurer is apps now we have a reason say you're absolutely correct the policy of this state is that insurers should defend were ever reasonably prudent and when they choose to deny coverage all right stand on the sidelines they take the risk that something like this can happen and that they will end up without the ability to serve defenses to the claim of liability in the end of the day and that's precisely why we're here for now as you know this case was up here before on an is irrelevant factor is perfectly appropriate for the insured to take into account the fact that they are facing extension tory damage liability of five hundred dollars per fa exposed but here it had indicia that it was going to be exposed her could be exposed to somewhere between eight million thirty million dollars and statutory damages everybody that number will shift a little bit and have a mean here  to say i'm basing some millions of dollars in we' have the right now to coming after the fact and question as of monday morning quarterback the decision of the insured to say look i have fifty cents on the dollar settlement that's ok by me and that's four and thirty one point too so using those number six million views roughly fifty seven percent of the five hundred dollars per fax sent you know so i said fifty fifty seven liability out there and i concluded that it was rational reasonable and appropriate to settle this case and that this number made sense because of the potential exposure here and the ability to cut it off to prove somehow who say those facts and so they can prove or can they do it by by phone number by only fax number i mean that's another pretty important factor isn't it typically in the case in these that we can use to create good parameters of the fit of the class and that tends to be the list to which the facts were sent so we identify the set patcher symbionts based on the list here you have a manufacturer that the nuisance and disruption and cost of tying up phone lines telephones fax machines is something that they chose to address with this death so whether you have a machine at the end of the line or not it's going to tie up your mind is going to interfere with your use of your property now you can temporarily it is not destroyed typically part  definition of probably a mission or a policy is either the loss of use of property that is not destroyed or the loss of property that is destroyed here congress made the decision that we believe this is so written material issue of fact and that's because we're looking again at the if the circumstances in retrospect instead of the prospect of leave it would be and says as you look at the question from from the insurance perspective had to tighten they made that decision go up to almost six it's not that you're going to policy limited says well let's wait and see what's better maybe we can find something that is better and that creates it creates a concern under most of these cases i believe so how do we respond to that the answer to the question of the two different settlement offers is very simply that an offer was made was not accepted and at a later date the plaintiff made a higher offer  record he's not developed i will say that as to why that happened but there were plenty of opportunities for counsel to to develop th was looking at is a scenario where first of all the insurer was defending it was not he was paying for the defense and had not breached the student to defend it had not left the assurer on its own as your honor pointed out and then came in later and said why should the government better deal with the real thing the trouble in the course and from usual was the circumstances surrounding great alice the who are selected by the insurer to substitute for the lawyers that chosen by the insurance company who then misled  deceived failed to inform the insurance company of material facts relating to the defense in the case and ultimately the selling of the case and that's what the trial for internet case found to be very troubling was the fact that justice part that the if the duty to conform was not made ultimately material to the outcome in that case there was one of the issues that they found to be troubling was the fact that mr ellis seemed to be not  i don't see a significant difference in that was the case proceeded for approximately eighteen months the record doesn't say he didn't look for information the record says they testified that i made an evaluation in this case of the defenses of the facts of the circumstances and i made a recommendation to my client and that's what he told the and that's what he testified in his deposition if there was something they wanted to do to cross examine him or they were there or the what your counsel say is well who was there was a lot of smoke out there but there are a lot of potential claims but that smoke is just small we don't know the all the class at the classification stage this would be a nevertheless too late payment of another line of judgment for more than a decade without any consequence the policy issue requires moonwalking to pay as a supplementary payment all interest on the full amount of judgment that accrues after entry of the judgment i think you for your patience and your time in your consideration n thank you thank you