i'm from south carolina where we elect our officials forever i feel last year as you may know our junior senator and only serve to thirty four years every other point and to take it one step further if you didn't bring the word occurrence into the policy you would need any certificates of insurance over and beyond so if the national because we will just have unlimited coverage for the wooden depending on the currents the second observation is this is implied but the argument that was very here as well this their already claims in one thousand seventy seven that are hard on the books aren't going anywhere and are absolutely no one to manhattan worry so there's not any the same way for another reason and i said well that's describe all i'm sure the district court will take any instruction that you offer and he smiled they decided the case they did reverse and then decided on othe grounds and i want to write a very worried man and you would think that someone who's got a lot agree that would have occurred to him and so what i would say to you with this i could argue here this morning by that one document is beyond me but i want to take justice powers instructions and say i think this court should rule as a matter of law all in favor of my client and i want to make just this observation this really is a case between two insurance scotus as to exactly what it is and here's why i think this court should rule with this is a matter out forgotten and the money received by guthrie as an offset and only reporting to the government the difference now what's the significance of that the significance however the point i'm making here within a half years i'm not questioning whether they were agents or not and the money should or should not have been credited because it was a financial vehicle what i'm saying is that's not even an issue we know that in fact that's what was being done for example in this rescue me i'm saying it you're right we should get it we should get credit not just on a t m but you have a server a recovery if you will and you should be giving it to us the purposes of preserving the white and what this letter twenty six zero zero one there's a letter from manhattan re that says this is how you shall handle it as a stock broker recovery he says with the guthrie recovery from the is unless it's a structured settlement and results in a solid why does it matter and what i would say to you is yes do you want to take to ensure it was no relationship judge built on vehicle and you can decide is this a financial deal or is it in a new it and you just work it back and forth and you benefit and if you do you keep it not you then well maybe you choose at the end of this client to handle it some other way and what i would say to you has isn't this really and mr stebbing would agree with me on this isn't this all about following the fortune schism would you want a primary carrier to go out and settle a case without a settlement order and have a structure and still have the access carrier out on the lam rights under the act is difficult especially in something like the us and it probably explains why it never happens but again the larger public policy is you i think is still deciding and i don't think there's anything to offer guidance i think it's so this panel to set the direction thank you very much for your time that there is nothing definitive out there and this is an implied it's a case of first impression i disagree i think this is a case that is very clearly resolved under existing nicer law and existing reinsurance law are what we have is we have a and how you might aggregate for single loss or multiple loss and so forth and his opinion was the contractor silent on that and therefore he provided testimony as to industry practice and i would submit to the court the national american versus  conflicting expert testimony one expert said yes it is implied and that's industry practice in the courts and that's proper expert testimony to consider but they found a trival issue of fact because there was conflicting expert testimony there was other expert testimony saying no it's not implied under industry practice here we have one expert he says you sustenance are covered in a properly allocated the way manhattan really has claimed in this case there is no conflicting expert testimony there can be no tribal issue fact and the ninth circuit international american said that you are permitted as a court to consider that expert testimony to explain the meaning of the language and  issue to the aggregate assessment in the first year of safety nationals participation was the first assessment that arose and i have no reason surance under the policy so you have an occurrence then when its policy terminates that is the point in which safety national's reinsurance terminix so all of its assessments that it gets in during that time three related to or rising from underlying payments t viable policy that's legally binding on you from first dollar for every claim we will go help you arrange reinsurance once the claim hits the two hundred thirty thousand dollar and then that coverage will be up to seven hundred fifty thousand alternative arrangement essentially had it saying i'm going to effect of late being liable by having to pay and then into manhattan three for up to the first two hundred fifty thousand dollars but i want to be protected from catastrophic in terms of ambiguity