simply because of the fact that all communications for a flood policy that were directed to allstate the company didn't occur until after the flood last sort of allstate was not presented with any information  the policy had been transferred from the prior owner to the new order and they the that's the record before us the evidence of the record before so they feel that they had insurance before the before the flood occurred and they did this by reason of having a tracer from the prior owner to them and there's no state law claims that's a hard that's a low hard case to make with regard to fought in the procurement or misrepresentation of pre human you have another option which is a nobody ever made a real misrepresentation case because we don't know who relied on what about what and the other is this regulation and the regulation basically addresses a servicing a that any money paid by reason of the which representation of their procurement is paid by the insurance company or state not by thinking is it your position that there is some regulation which provides that the united states is doing its duty for the united states and part of this duty is to make sure that we strictly construes and applies to regulations of the policy and because of that based on the arrange can you claim at the same time that that claim is preempted by federal law if we conclude that the merits of that play would be paid by the insurance company or not by the federal government i think that's where it is drawn is whether allstate is still off the hook because of sixty one point five and part of the team up program is to encourage companies like allstate to participate and therefore they are let off the hook directly under sixty one point five even no do not may not be paying means that agent is the agent for the insured not for a stick and that would mean the agent is the one who get sued and all state doesn't have to pay but the federal government's not pay either so the agent has the pay now i don't know what kind of them down the pick asian agreement there is between all staying the agent that's another matter but the most seems to be off the hook so the only between the maya and the government where it doesn't say in sixty one point five that beam is going to pay we want to we have to work at it as a whole and the the contract between allstate and what is that arrangement says that if the nature if there's a danger that that same is going to pay as i write the regulations be exact opposite i get there's nothing that would indicate that if this is a very serious claim that the government that the united state and any insurance company to act in certain areas in the sale of insurance on behalf of the but there's nothing in these regulations that says if the agent is negligent in procuring that the federal government will pick up the the insurance policy which previously covered the prior owner was now transferred somehow to the your client what is or what is the evidence in this record which supports that the testimony of mr  to encourage insurance companies to participate in yes by lending and mock the hard work claims about scope and extent of coverage even where he doesn't pay that's a possibility isn't it i