victims classically this type of factual scenario arises in boston or automobile accidents in this particular case a defective filter which allowed chlorine to leach into a hard drive part resulted in the dissemination worldwide of defective parts one of the biggest victims of the quote bad act or the negligence of isn't claim splitting yes your honor the lead authority on whether a single primary right or to primary rights are violated with multiple victims is wiccan and what wiccan says is quote where two or more persons are injured in the same accident the primary right of each is violated and there issued only insured property owned by others although the premium in this case was paid by intro plex the only coverage issued by that policy was if there was injury to someone else and in this particular case what happened was the insurance company atlantic mutual paid seven hundred fifty thousand dollars to a company in thailand called k r p and the reason for that was that although the premium was paid by in triplex the only coverage present was worth it was if someone else's property was damaged and in fact  the situation is akin to the flint case in which you have a single accident and you have the passenger who is injured and then you have the driver and in that case the indemnity claim was found to be a different primary contract for a contractor to buy an insurance policy that insures the owner of the building and in this particular case the premium was paid by intra plax and it's listed as an insured insured on the policy and so in your hypothetical it wasn't quite complete as to who is the actual insured me and made me that third parties are the fishery in effect and insured  a very unique policy and the only coverage under this policy was for damage to property owned by others and that isn't disputed whose the name insured on the policy insurance and well it goes to the fact that there never entitle to personally collect any money there are only entitled to be indemnified if someone else suffers damage to their property from which they would be responsible and sorry two new cases that have come up that have not addressed it in the context of subrogation but since the briefing there have been to california cases that addressed but in that context your honor in terms of subrogation i'm not familiar with a case where it's of this factual situation where all of the money went to the passenger in the car and then the insurer brings his own claim but since the intellectually there should be no distinction because either it's the same primary right work or it is not the same primary right if it's not the same primary right claim splitting doesn't apply and unfortunately under california law what happened here was the district court was railroading this case never even darkened the door of the courthouse that in all deference to the caseload the district court and in terms of what the factual record is here based upon judicial notice and no opportunity for argument or no requesting a tenderer proffer of what an amended complaint would show on this rather thin record the district court threw the case out without granting any opportunity for leave to amend and in terms of the status of the record which they signed the california court of appeal said that you were affirming this particular judgment because the underlying case when all with all the way to judgment if there was a settlement however and you have a to sor that knows there are multiple claimants out there it's on the tortfeasor to initiate a motion for joining them and in this particular case the way they got around that is in their brief they say oh we didn't know that there were multiple claims out there and the courts in their findings were not going to apply the assault of the erie of the mill rock in case because there's nothing in the record to suggest that crest knew intra plex had well the fact of the matter is your honor in terms of whose burden is it the california court of appeal which has spoken to who has the impetus to initiate the jointer has ruled squarely  the part of the court fees and in terms of what was going on in that action the only thing that was going on there were a bunch of defective drives in thailand in terms of the scope of the damages that they had that was a universe of damages th and by the weren't insured well enough to take the change it was reversed in that the subsequent action would have been by the insurer but the rule that if you know about another claimant out there and you settle it doesn't make a t r p also had a strict liability claim going up to crest and once it paid those damages which were whatever losses k r r p had its claim with no better and no worse than the insurance company atlantic mutual has a seven hundred fifty thousand dollar check to k r p they walk into court and say crops were unhappy if credit goes in improves well you know what you will pretend that there was only thirty eight dollars worth of damage to those hard drives we've gone into thailand in proven that the damages are not that big that they step into the shoes of the person whose damages that they paid and if it turned out that there was contributory negligence and in terms of the damage to the hard drive the tail r p should have known to go through a tap before they incorporated in the hard drive whatever defenses would have applied to an action directly by k r p versus crest applied to the carrier and it's true that we're in the food chain or the manufacturing chain just as bendix may provide bad breaks to forth which provided to a dealer which provided to on an ultimate consumer but in this particular case not one penny of the money that the including claims against crust that the customer's claims were not just limited to those against us but yes the claims against the insurance company wasn't there the claims for the customer base of the of your client correct for damages to that customer correct and in this particular case it would be is if you had an insurance company that insured the driver of the bus the driver of the bus is injured and the driver the bus has a derivative liability with respect to a third party the then in terms of california cases what's going on here is a district court is saying if a bus accident occurs and you have thirty people that are injured i don't believe it's appropriate are the primary rights theory two of each of the thirty to sue separately that's what california law yes he may not like it for his doctrine but there has never been a case never and there's no case cited by christ in which the injuries to different parts are found to be violation of the is this is another that equipment it became contaminated that's the allegation then interest likes then sells those products to somebody who incorporates them in their products without doing quality control i guess and i just want to address one point in the record the opposing counsel mentioned that the underlying lawsuit was vague as to this is the one that we saw judicial notice of in the district court but it was big as to exactly what rate the record in fifty one which is paragraph fourteen of land of mutual complain take part in the settlement so the question is as as good it's reflect a known entity well we know from the complaint that they were in a contractual relationship and both the district court and craft in their briefing argued to this court that you can make a finding that they didn't have knowledge that there is a problem if the twelve b motion and what the district court did in order to get around that problem was say well we don't see anything in the record here that addresses what the scope of cress knowledge was that's why you have discovery that's why it is that you go forward and in terms of of of the unite circuit applying the same rule  contamination occurs and there plexus what are lawsuits their losses are to their own property and are their losses also their exposure to third party statement that was absolutely false and incorrect the statement he made was that there was no direct claim by k r p that ran up the craft wrong there was a strict liability claim go back to the atlantic mutual complaint and they say we bought parts whoever manufactured the defective part it came through the chain of commerce to us they are directly liable so it is not true p had claims that the claims were soley against us and that their only recourse was against us and that was a very critical point in this particular case the universe of the types of damages los simultaneously cost like an automobile accident or a bus accident that causes damages to multiple people and there's never been a case we talk about stop a geisha all of the cases that they cite deal with a single car and there's one universe of damage with one entity that suffered damage and there's an insurance company that pays a portion of it there's never been an application of this claim splitting doctrine where it's a third party that suffered damages for example somebody who suffers a head injury and the one case it's directly on point which is the flynn case where you have both the passenger in the automobile and the driver there was in the filing case and arbitration that went to final