dismissed it is our argument your honor that feldman does not apply but coles in order for her feldman to apply there has to be one ever requested arbitration until after the judge threw a spot the order to star tracy well ok it was a suicide by taking order but you were the one who was harmed by it i guess of new york they get weight to that well that's something you could have released in new york but the judge for whatever reason decided to compel arbitration and you should be allowed to basically related to that in arkansas and now in federal court but he also rudy did not have jurisdiction and i can ignore that part of his  court on january th two thousand and twenty cuts directly to page three of the contract between my client you read the word works and p s which specifically states in the a bit that there is no recovery from so he the payments were seated by my client that did not require any top of the lease or settlement agreement or finality and and may two thousand and indicates that this was not a sum i think my question is the transfer pursuant to a contract is is there a case that says that's involuntary dictionary definition for miriam webster under the heading definition of voluntary voluntary there is a such a category for law at doing or done without a legal obligation not and certainly when that property was turned over to the client it was in effect lost because it could not be reprogrammed since it was his money the park are seeking coverage but there's no coverage under the policy now is mr parker stated there are two main types of coverage and issue here one is st party coverage for business personal property and the other is rd party commercial commercial general liability coverage c d o it is the argument mr parker only addressed the voluntary parting exclusion which is part of the st party property coverage so i'll start with that he says that there was no goal in terry parting with the property but what we know based on his own leading to a conclusion that money should be paid is certainly not involuntary parker says that the agreement with p s f is what compelled he is shit but all that that exclusion applies and making his argument to the cooler mr parker has skipped over the right idea of issues that also preclude coverage here the rd he's talking distinction one is tangible could once currency and the other is not tangible property he said it's that there was an occurrence here but that it was not there was no  under the policy because parker good if he paid the funds evaluate the contract and paid them according to his own interpretation that's not an accident he may have been mistaken about who could correct and he was but as parkinson our case law states there were no unexpected consequences from his conduct in other words eureka got the transferred to adult court the argument where pierre finance made a motion to dismiss the claim mr parker actually said that he was looking to appeal that suggests that you lost in the trial of course in what respect did you lose by the arbitration order well because we did not if i believe it right if you're on the point is exxon mobil all said some of the courts of appeals have been applying ricker feldman too broadly and that record feldman should be not substituted for other doctrines like issue preclusion and claim preclusion that it really was d limited to cases where state court losers were filing lawsuits complaining about injuries they suffered as a result of the state court judgments i think that's a fair summary and i'm wondering what do you see is the injury that the parker offer him is claiming was caused by the state court  i'm not following you seem to be saying that the new york ruling by its own for supplies partial winners and respondent p s l lost completely at the trial level there was no need for the response or the notice of entry and this appeal is on time arbitration and the nd department of the supreme court of new york appellate division has already stated that arbitration and that was also filed january th two thousand and twenty doctrine must be a state court order which mr slow down as admitted up in new york that he didn't when he says he lost completely which he did he follow one thing in his motion for summary judgment in lieu of complain page three dollars of the agreement which i believe just found on page thirty one  client from having the money it belongs to him the arkansas supreme court has routinely stated that insurance companies have verdict and there was no settlement because there was no documents but to waiting a settlement there was no agreed upon amount for the settlement in fact his claim was denied i think it was in march and march of two the business owner's property coverage it care was not only money but it also could have secured costs so that's a specious argument that the checks have no physical form because security