my belief that the release of a us parole whether it should have been admitted to to show what the true meaning of the release was and the true meaning was that it didn't apply to the plan at all and none of the parties of the time they the arrest or claims for the long term disability claim but it would never have to have paid to the the benefits of sense of fully insured so it makes sense that they would have that in the in the agreement are persons acting under by through or in concert with and that's a bit ambiguous it's pretty broad and it would cover the customers potentially could cover the post evidence rule as the california supreme court has said it's a two step process the first step an across tests if you look at the evidence that submitted without admitting it simply review it to see if it shows that there step and said ok looking at the terms of the release does that apply to this party and he was correct as well now it is the evidence not submit any  purported intent of one party of one side and the cases are clear that that is not and miscible evidence to give meaning to a contract because you can't that because the parties are unhappy with the result they cannot is not admissible evidence this is the secret undisclosed intent is not admissible in any event so then eventually correctly went to the terms of the release and the terms say under the release language as to so the plan is potentially within there is a person and then it says in person acting by under or in concert with the employer certainly a plan exacting by an employer the employer the employer the release what was intended by we presume the parties because it says this that this was intended to be a complete release of everything to do with her employment relationship and that i believe your honors it was one of the reasons why it includes insurance benefits arista benefits a t a i all sorts of others you know federal state statutes it was very clear that the employer wanted to be sure that any potential claims having to do with anything to do with the employment relationship agree that that is the way that the law should go or the way the current the correct statement of the law but certainly against cases of published opinion it says that the plan administrator can be brought in any case for that claims under it's under the insurance play and has to do with premiums remember this is a fully funded playing for contributory employer was paying all the premiums for its employees and therefore to the extent that claims it's a claim based premium then the employer would have an incentive to make sure that they're there are being claims out there that are going to be litigated that are going to be brought up they wanted  what could why would the employer be thinking this and all we know about with the employer was thinking was is what's in the release and we believe your honor that the release is very clear that both under the really seized it wanted to be completely bro i don't know that it was a slip up i think that i don't think that at all i think that whether or not a belief is effective does not depend on the reliance or knowledge of third parties so whether or not you know about knew about this release and in fact the real reason that unit found out was because after the release and after she sued you know the employers lawyer called unum it said there was this release out there she's released these c prior to that prior to the employees doing prior to ms often suing you know the employer had no knowledge that there was any reason for you to know and when there was this litigation that's when the employer's lawyer contacted him and said these claims have been released so they didn't bother to tell anybody and they didn't even think of applying it but then they did know about the claim it's far as we don't know the intent of the employer we know from their actions their failure to notify you