some because there is such out a dearth of precedent i really wonder whether this really this this this question of duty to defend is it really is the right issue for us because it seems to me that if you work you are trying to involve the voluntary payment to avoid an obligation under the facts saying that before it can exercise their security in whatever way he wants to exercise that duty even innate overly broad and he has to get approval from mine so what we're saying two of them were going to receive the same miles under the mistaken one one got too much money not one of which returning for home got almost eight hundred sixty four thousand dollars less this was in a the writing of what he could have written a letter that even he mr greenfield would not back away from every let me ask you this if the insurance company told him how to deal with justice gordon's question yes what if he wanted to go beyond the counsel that i as he was giving him in terms of how he should exercise that obligation to disclose what he sad i want to write you might think those are facts but they're not really because you don't know what she wears think so going back just words question he he wouldn't have free reign in terms of how he would address to offer any advice with respect to the content that there is nothing in this record that i just be unusual with trampled on ethical obligations this lawyer to the beneficiaries why do you want to have a windfall for meant simply directed greenfield to admit or deny that the letter that he rolls contained these disclosures as opposed to it meaning that the facts that he put in a letter were in fact facts that could have he was negligent in his eyes he was right and there's no dispute about that right but then he's wrong as well as in some of the facts that he puts in his letter to you i just wonder whether that isn't a one who did this i don't know well here i was thinking i don't know i don't know all i hear he said that this war is going to be the basis for a summary judgment in the malpractise case why it had missed an attorney client relationship it admitted day after the accident the other drivers in the hospital he apologized as he said i'm sorry it was my head i don't know what happened it's all my fault you're be taken care of but the corporal several years ago remarkably s beneficiaries when you go to fire he did not if he had done it last i think he would have arguably been sued for not being sufficiently clear about what happened the letter itself really i how much farther would he have to go to admit liability under their theory what what do you think was missing from the letter that would have satisfied what would that would have put something in this letter so that the beneficent beneficiaries had nothing left to do but go to court and say based upon this document you must enter a judgment against them and they can't do that here because you simply admit it is negligence not the results of the negligence and as a matter of fact i can prove that because in the defense reply brief i'm sorry in the in the defendant's main brief it page twenty three there is a myth that the legal effect of the letter has yet to be and the reason for that is that this court might we might not know what other defenses might exist out there there is no statutory powers but it could be there if there could be other reasons why they wouldn't speak damage that's why his letter was careful to say the letter is nothing more than a mathematical calculation and if he writes the letter today or tomorrow those two things have to be there now there's two things dramatically increase the chances that there that he's going to have a difficult time at the trial question do you defend given the standard for doing just that i would have to think that out before i was going to to answer that your honor because it might have repercussions that i am not thinking of as i stand here i think at this point probably the parties  he still has to make the same answer to the request to admit and if i can't kind of it's a two prong answer once this parade of horribles these things they would have done that that that they would have done that they would have answered things differently if he if mr greenfield that first con c is not really something they raised down below that and made it that that it's a new issue secondly the request to admit don't simply say did you say this in the letter the request would not have a little baggage to them as any good lawyer would add and his lawyer was trying to avoid that shared to meet with the insurance company before writing the letter information like what would you think of that but that would put me in a much more difficult situation and i think that was that was an analysis that was going to break through the crowd which is barely slipped my mind if they want this policy to say that hellboy or cannot communicate to his client i don't know how they could ever get away with that because as soon as they put that into the policy they begin to have to fear with the client with the lawyers duty to communicate with his client i don't i don't know that the ethics people would agree to a situation where i need to screen my information through some intermediary  pardon before there is litigation it's almost like a precentor sophistry there's no claim involved at that point and yet i'm fulfilling my duty to the beneficiaries who are just like my clients and yet running it through a third party talk to you at all i would think a good insurance company would do that and it's interesting enough i think it was just discordant ask a question about what would have happened if if he'd said to them the the c s reply brief admits of page three i had to check that before i stood up we agree we had no right to veto the letter well if they have no right to veto the letter then he had the right to send a letter and telling him i see about it was not going to change an we breached some provision in this policy they still have to show that that change the outcome and the underlying case and they can't do that because all we said in the letter were the same facts that we would have had to say if we were called to testify at the