that's helpful to your client why didn't they ask for an extension because they had been lulled into a sense of security that led them to conclude that their claim would be resolved amicably without filing a lawsuit and that's what the  confusing here i'm not sure that i have a perfect understanding of who knows what land but i do recall that your clients figure went from six million which is considered high to eighteen million did they really have such confidence that the check was in the mail they didn't have any confidence that the check was in the mail their confidence in what they say over and over again is that this was a company that could be trusted that factory mutual had integrity and that when they step this claim will be adjusted and when they a march fifteenth deadline just been no request for an extension and what happens back in mutual according to the testimony of its own a witness jury alarm so we'll listen to the customer to respond to the technical report that they have prepare the context here is one that's unusual to me as to the extent that i had any exposure to insurance law it was not with this expectation or or with the doctrine that suggests that you can file prematurely and i understand from your argument that in fact we're in a context where you could be tossed out because it's not established yet that there's a legitimate dispute can you confirm for me or at least lay out for me what it is that has causes the insurance company to pull factors and legal problems to should probably paying attention to what otherwise w doctrine somehow that means that if you're premature you get tossed out on background if there is there's actually two one is the doctrine of just disability and rightness and you know that there has to be a current dispute when testimony shows it's a march fifteen the provincial l m i commercial insurance case from california says exactly the same thing during this period of time while the insurer is determining liability and policy any suit on the policy filed by the plaintiffs would have been premature there's also as you mention another basis which is the contract itself and the policy the policy makes very clear in the limitation of supervision that all policy conditions must be satisfied before conduct from making that argument and and it really has nothing to do with whether the lawsuit would be premature or whether it would be premature what was right for not it's just simply the issue that's raised in the shape case that shocks you case and  cannot it cannot disturb the limitation of supervision as a defense and here we have an insurance company that very carefully i would say orchestrated its adjustment of this claim creates problems the first one being if you if you apply the rules the way you're talking about several things can happen which part of that is what happened in this case they provided eight noticed that something had happened after mutual requested information about what happened provide documentation the brief refers to several letters and some request for information and for documentation to back it up it was not forthcoming there were many requests many everything needed as many attempts to try to get the information vacuum which will need to resolve the unstructured time northwest of the mine for an extension of time there are letters that were sent after the prior time would have expired confirming an agreement to grant an extension of time and each situation there was an agreement to grant an extension of time  recognized getting back to the question of how we got to where we are the efforts that that are neutral repeatedly made to try to resolve these claims left them in a position of having to say they're not giving us the information we need to do something let's get together did not need any false statements after mutual did not see anything that indicated they would not enforce a limitation provision that they would waive provisions of the policy they did not do anything to interfere with our ability to find a lawsuit before the tsu premature or hard but again at a minimum they could have requested a further extension or done something different try to protect their interests they did nothing they couldn't file a lawsuit to enforce their claim and when we look at the letter in this letter point out there are a lot of issues in this case when you look at the letter that denies the claim it doesn't say first and foremost  and that's exactly what the courts in the echo bull tolling context have adopted that doctrine to prevent that from happening so the court ruling i mean the totally would extend the time of your saying the claim would never even be right because you haven't gotten of course will declaration of the cloning that can't be the rule in the obligation of the insurance companies to pay the claim and the to pay it or they don't pay it is not just so you would know if they don't pay it you have your contractual right to sue and what i'm saying is that if they don't