court essentially established that the claims that the initial claim raised that should have been notified to liberty occurred out of the policy period that was involved in the and the reasoning behind this is the court's interpretation of what constitutes a raw interrelated wrongful act it is our contention that prior to analyzing what interrelated wrongful acts are we need to decipher what wrongful acts are under the policy counsel i just want to get the lay of the land straight on it on a couple of facts that i had some trouble understanding maybe could help me before you get into this part of your argument so does the record disclose is there any way that we would know whether there was a a preexisting policy two thousand and ten two thousand and eleven policy that is similar to the policy that you made the claim under the the thing is dirge that yes the answer to your question is yes because the  i don't think that there would be any controversy in terms of the existence of the policy and did the entity seek coverage under that prior policy when when the  to their medical malpractise professional liability policy which was admiral insurance they have a policy for professional liability so and i have one more question who uncovered the two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve policy and had it submitted was that your client was that he the entity was it direct communications between your client and the insurance agency who actually uncovered that policy who found it the insured the insurer liberty because the claim is made for the very first time in february two thousand and twelve which which a potential claim in reality and the formal claim which was the second amended complaint i'm sorry i mean the the request for coverage it did three the broker ok who found the insurance the insurance policy and yes it's you know because the claim is made within the policy period it is understood that that is the policy which should respond for the acts because the claims made policy no because a claim for under the direct heirs and officers policy was never made until february two thousand and twelve the initial claim was made for record i believe it isn't but the fact is that once again the controversy here hang on when the claim was supposed to have been made so i think these questions are actually shows there is not a policy so is there anything in the record that would enable us to say there is another policies that you have the district court is right all it's finding is that the claim was ma that a policy does you know a second policy does exist we did raise that issue and that's when the court denies a motion for reconsideration stating that we waive that argument because that's something that we should have said beforehand but once again the reasoning behind that is because there's really no need to make reference to that prior policy because there is a priority geisha and they eat on the policy we were invoking that stated basically that any facts up until two thousand and eight  was the agent of liberty well then we have on the record communications between the broker and liberty's agent were literate the letter liberty's agent states that any claim to be referred to true liberty mutual can only be made once there is a direct allegation of director impropriety  a complaint and that was not the case in the initial complaint because you national complaint was limited exclusively to medical malpractise and that that is why our contention is that under the medical at the time that the medical malpractise claim was filed it was impossible to notify the directors and officers policy it just didn't make any sense because there were no claims in that first complaint regarding any impropriety on behalf of the director or an officer the complaint is amended that is when the clean is notified under the directors and officers policy the problem is that the district court is stating that under the interrelated wrongful example of two wrongful acts that that emanate from a director an officer not a case that such as this that has to deal with medical malpractise and subsequently is amended in order to include claims against the directors and officers so that is why our position is that the claim that was made was made on dying because it was the very first time that any claim related to the director an officer was ma to the he shared the same facts circumstances and situations and events surrounding the medical services is what is greedo that if it had been a medical malpractise thing it couldn't have been brought under this policy you would say this is related to a claim that could not have been brought under this policy well unless there's some text that your what's the text you're relying on that would make absolutely and i want to go into the past and when you go to the text of what and so is it clear that a wrongful act include something it could not result in a claim under the policy is that seems to be your argument it's an easy argument so what's the text that was it just any wrongful act can include something that could well well well when you look at these some of the allegations in that first leading some of the allegations go beyond your for going to the insurance company to get coverage no so what is the policy rationale for reading the contract in the way you're asking us to read it because what it means is he can't provision in the way you're suggesting because what it seems to result in is a clock running on a potential claim against your company when they are powerless to actually file a claim during the period when the clock is running i just don't get  further a nine point two isn't the reason provided for why you would consider interrelate claims to be one claim and they may be late back to the first plane and that is it's all about limit of liability yes that doesn't go to the argument that you're making here today that there should be no coverage nine point two is all about limited liability yeah but but  policy it doesn't give them the added corbridge that they want and regardless the point any then one eleven policy it's not even properly before these court because it's not into record it was never  here is whether or not there existed an obligation for my client who was not even mentioned in the first complaint to notify liberty that there may have been a potential claim against him it mention personnel yes medical personnel nurses technicians it has nothing to do with whether a director or an officer of the company why would the hospital notify in good faith to the directors and officers policy a medical malpractise going in makes no sense prior to addressing the issue of inter related wrongful acts we have to define what an wrongful act is and wrongful acts pursuant to the definition has to do with the of the hospital but regardless at the end of the day there was no and like i said there's no good faith reason why the hospital would have to notify the directors and officers of this policy when they received a medical malpractise complaint that's why they notify their medical malpractise policy mean they had no there was no reason to believe that any type of claim against the directors or officers was going to be raised at that point in time and that's why it cannot be construed as an intermediate wrongful act and that is why the claim was made during the correct policy that was involved because it was made during that policy period and to to want to stretch