and of course insurance contracts unlike unlike most contracts don't follow all the rules of literal language under oregon law let's talk about when that contract came to fruition or wrote  policy even when was the notice given it was that notice with her list of the notice provisions of the policy certainly notice was not given within the time period set out in the policy if that's the case and isn't that the beginning of the end of the caro i looked at federated services and then i also looked at her and i couldn't find any of those cases to me exactly the kind of a policy which we have well that's true and so therefore if we don't have a policy that is strictly appropriated or directly spoken to by the oregon court then i guess i'm trying to figure out why i should not the notice prejudice rule applies to claims made policies in california and because it hasn't we did citing as the ninth circuit in bunch that for two me ask you to focus then in oregon law and i think everybody understands the problem which is that there's not a controlling organ case that speak specifically to this new try to argue that or going to law generally unlike the law on other states require the showing of prejudice but then i run into herman which isn't this case either but it seems to be a pretty clear indication the organ courts don't say that prejudice has to be shown in every case because in that case they didn't require a showing of prejudice despite the series of decisions that you waive law that requires the showing of prejudice for any of these policy details or or specific notice requirements to kick again and we have at least in her mind whether it's through the an act or the legislature or the decision of a court decision that says no in this kind of policy that simply doesn't apply it's struck by this other rule and the question here is well is that rule that you're trying to draw from the oregon decisions trumped by the fact that this is a different kind of policy i think conflating  let me finish my question in the context of a claims made policy the obligation of the is sure or never arise unless the claim is timely made and if the claim is not timely made then the obligation of the insurer never arises and the insurer is barred from seeking recovery out of the claim that operates exactly like the statute of limitations and preventing  really isn't part of service but it is the coverage happens in the current policy there is coverage we're just arguing about whether even though there is coverage that your client has not given timely notice so they ought to get out because of prejudice and so we look about prejudice but in the claims made we are establishing coverage in the first place that's the worry that i have and my worry crinkly taking your side deny the whole a couple of times i suggested to myself well let's find out what the law is and my worry was so i knew alla cases now never finding a claims made policy decision and there are again never finding one where i could really say that's what oregon says then i have ninth circuit policy which is pretty straight we got some distinction between these two types of policies that rejected this exact argument by the same insurance company that said your prior cases have adopted a notice prejudice like claims made by the current policies national union says treat them differently to kids from personal course one that's not what you're going to do here and i i think that but i think what's important here is the fact that you if you look at the language of the policy and i actually handed up three illustrations of the policy where it clearly points out both on the declaration she gave one of the policy and insurer of any claim made against an insurer as soon as practicable but then it goes on to say and either any time during the policy period or within thirty days after that i think the court in the circuit court in lexington versus english university summed it up well because they said that the notice requirement in a claims made and reported policy is not part of the duty to cooperate like it is in the an occurrence policy work the first circuit pointed out in the delusional case both of which are cited in our papers a claims made policy is designed in such a way so that the insurer can determine at the end of the policy period where this thirty day discovery period wh that essentially it goes to the underwriting risk that the insurer decides to take and that drives the price of these policies which presumably are cheaper than our current because of course their argument is that it is not necessarily in the current policy and it's applies to all policies in fact the it talks about an occurrence of an accident on page five ninety six of the policy under that using the oregon numbers it also talks about the fact what it was an automobile policy which is based is an occurrence not claims made and reported policy and i think one of the one of you pointed out with the herman case while it's not exactly on point in terms of it was imitation it pointed out it actually gave the same analysis and the court said that prejudice was not necessary because the purpose the claim was made to the insured in the prior policy year and even know the insurer gave notice i guess through the agency to to the carrier because of the the law a it winds up falling between the gaps because it doesn't qualify the claims made for the succeeding policy year to the insured had no this i'm not saying there's any ill intent but there's a touch of gotcha they are in terms of coverage that otherwise would have existed in coverage that was paid for that winds up being forfeited because of late notice if you put this in the in accordance policy context at least in oregon that wouldn't work and i'm not sure i understand the logic or reason as to why they should be treated differently your honor that again i think the first circuit where the eighth circuit i'm sure of the two cases that i cited actually did address this issue and said that may be true but we have to enforce the contract as it is there in and a claim again  so that should tell is away from from the principle we heard articulated certainly advocated by the insured and there is some support for it in oregon cases that say you know we're not necessarily going to be bound to enforcing the contract as it is written if that doesn't if you take this is a two year unit there's no question but they fall within the period of time they're insured by national union so it's a little harder for me to understand exactly why it is that this policy is going to flounder if for some reason the claim allowed to come a little bit late and there's no prejudice as a result each policy has to be treated separately you can't make a distinction because they chose to purchase two policies one after the other you can't treat the language of the policy and the rules of construction of that policy and what's required by that policy differently whether it is a policy in the first year by national union in the second year by  reported policy i think they're all only one year but if you work it's correct if it was a two year policy if the policy period said two years and you and you follow the requirements of that policy that is that you had to report it within the policy period then based on the law and in other jurisdictions you'd be if they would have made the determined make the claim during the correct policy period but that purchased a one year policy they happened to purchase the second year from the same carrier but it should make in terms of construction of the policy and construction of the insurance contract that should make no difference whether again as it was whether the two years were purchased from the same carriers or separate carriers the problem is that we don't know what the impact is on the underwriting rift between the two years i'm not is any impact on the writing that they made and reported policy is treated differently in the underwriting process than an occurrence face policy but here we have no specific information in the record as to what was anything in the argument made in this record at all and any stage about what the school activities association was marketing to get i mean you know we're really talking about here me that the oregon schools activity association with understands claims made from occurrence as an association so they were probably bargaining for insurance and all of this is just