because the court spoke with one thing and one voice for so many years and it's not possible to to argue that the court somehow didn't understand some rulings or lost it if you can mute if you can mute your microphone when you're not speaking that would help us out i think ok ok great thank you sir are a test case is mr gore is i understand your arguments this point you are explaining  ensure can still dispute coverage that they are not bound by that judgment except as to what was cited in that judgment which would be the insurance liability and the amount but coverage hasn't been then that expands coverage that the insurer lose the reality insurer loses any ability to defend itself and coverage and that does not seem consistent with the language of la box to go left so to speak with the organ the hogan rule the rule you just referred to there there has been a breach or the duty to defend there has been a judgment and there is i think it should've been argued in your breeze the nd is that that brings in i think so what it means is that there is no judgement for a basis for collateral which means that there's only a crisp option that the insurer is liable and common ground here what's not in dispute what's not in dispute is that the mob here is seeking nothing for the fans what's not in dispute is that zero dollars of this settlement were for cover damages what's not in dispute is the hogan yet his line of authority as to a carrier after a judgment is only liable for cover damages what's not in dispute is a lamb i still good law a summary judgment was properly and what we have is a narrow issue which counsel describes as a matter of st impression that is through creative loring he's trying to change what california law has been since lam and lam is not an isolated case there the district court properly and this is e r fifty three to fifty five traces the history of lam the history of california law from lamb to hogan which cites and relies on lamb through proven  was the leading scholar on california insurance law in fact actually wrote the book he wrote the writer insurance coverage guide which is standard reference in california i am saying this is still the rule it is the rule and plaintiff is trying to change that but what does it put together to try to change that claims hogan is a collateral estoppel case that's very interesting because if you look at age five hundred and sixty six of the hogan decision the court says that the issues in that in the underlying case there did not determine coverage then determine coverage whatsoever one way or the other hoping can't be a collateral estoppel case when the supreme court says that the underlying case didn't determine coverage council is riding on and what does the spring board say it says what great holds is if it's unclear whether result in an undefended action is covered or not however and durant here did what hogan reach gray as requiring it to do case they lose control the fence they lose control of the saddle that means the insurer can go ahead and settle the case without care or consent they can do everything they want to shape that case for a settlement that  it for five hundred thousand because the carrier was defending the supreme court and said no you got to play out your cards insured you can't settle get that extra one hundred thousand dollars if the carrier had not offended ny six and the insured would have been free to settle for five hundred thousand dollars that would have been a result settlement carrier would have been bound by only thing the carrier doesn't lose the difference between not defending and when you do lose coverage is by not defending you don't lose coverage you don't lose your coverage defenses you lose those coverage defenses if you  fail to accept a reasonable settlement offer so if you fail to defend and there's no reason so many offer and there's a reason some an offer and you don't accept it then you lose coverage no claim of a reasonable settlement offer here and that is the distinction that the supreme court makes and commonality in commonality it says failure to defend if you defense costs and implicitly and cover damages that may result com but if you fail to accept the result settlement offer now you're on the hook for coverage now you're on the hook for a non covered mouse other than the later p p d case says punitive damages under but plaintiff construct would eliminate the distinction the commonality makes between the consequences of failure to found and the consequences of a failure  see my time yes you run unless the court has further questions i would ask the court to from the district court's recent decision applying established california law ok and with all due respect to my friend to read the case is to instantly conclude it was a collateral estoppel case was nothing else the court went to a lot of judgments and cited it