one that would find the notice in this case i'm timely before the policy older ever had any opportunity to even know that there was a potential claim against it could be covered and second even if that interpretation is the only within thirty days of the commencement of the incident the district court adopted the the fall of these jurors companies interpretation of that that said thirty days or thirty days regardless of whether the policy holder ever  that the insurance company position is not reasonable at all for a couple of reasons the most significant and the one that's briefness there only is that it's unreasonable to find late notice before somebody could know that they had nothing to do and the policy language itself suggest the oregon supreme court in the in the hoffman case that the courts should not adopt a policy interpretation that would render a provision meaningless shere if the insurance the post reports something of petroleum products for situations like this where the policyholder had no reason to know that their work could conceivably have given resident give wrong given rise to a pollution incident on the third canal is reasonable protect the reasonable expectations of the insured that they will have this limited pollution coverage provided that this and if they know they've got a problem they provide the insurer with notice of that it does not render the provision that prejudice is required under the current space policy and here this policy when you look at the language it's a variation of an occurrence policy it's not a claims made policy there is nothing in the policy that requires the third party claim to be brought within the be covered by the policy that's a hallmark of an occurrence face policy not a claims made policy and that's sort of the the extreme potential result of the ruling of a district court here  but there's always a potential out there and if they did that and three years down the road the third party claimant comes in and says in fact that was due to any filter and that was listening to the insurance company would be provided then there would be coverage on the policy here particularly to that particular condition which should be viewed as a condition for future not a condition of coverage and a significant reason for that is because of the fact that this notice is a fact of only supposed to be within the control of the insured there as then ablution incident which gives rise to coverage of the policy but the insurer has a responsibility to provide notice to the insurer of that pollution incident we would argue once they knew or reasonably should have known oh oh so essentially there is coverage and the coverage could be forfeited to give the insurer does not does not follow its obligations under the policy it's not a situation where these third party claims is it was defining the coverage of the third type claim just what should define the coverage then the insured has a responsibility to provide notice at the risk of potentially forfeiting cover so that should be view the language its plain meaning the language in question is as follows and it is contained within the ensuring agreement which will be critical to the discussion of whether or not a prejudiced requirement can be granted ensuring agreement court order to apply that you will have rendered this provision meaningless when the insurer discovers the collision is not the same as mine it commences it simply isn't and that language and its plain meaning cannot be given the as the release of the waste into the environment there is no language in the policy that predicates coverage or any obligation to report so as to trigger the ensuring agreement on the insured state of knowledge no language whatsoever contractor doesn't know about it doesn't give notice it's that coverage and let me address that because i believe your question system something that we disappear and that is you say they've bought insurance for that which say ok they haven't bought insurance for that if the coverage doesn't cover that's exactly my point here and if it doesn't fall i think the insuring agreement all of the rhetoric with respect to forfeiture of the claim or we're not getting what we've paid for yes you're getting and be happy to judge dean sharing agreements of times whether or not the parties even have a contractual obligation that they have to talk about if there is no contractual obligation under the ensuring agreement there is nothing to force it to prejudice requirement both in oregon and nationally is grafted on to certain types of coverage to stop ensured from losing coverage for an otherwise c within the ensuring agreement so courts say it would be unfair based on a general condition of forfeiture to lose an event that is the subject to your contractual bargain contrast that with a claim that never claims made policy claims made policies all have a reporting requirement and those policies only are involved in other words the coverage grant is first instead of so that one would even look to an exclusionary condition and that gets back to a very critical point all of this is the fine based on the actual terms of the policy question that's theoretical these with respect to claims made policies or other types of coverage it's just specific policy language that we must look to exclusion ensures decided that the premiums did not adequately cover the risk of pollution liability in the late one nine hundred ninety s certain serves mainly small market insurers such as about insurance decided that they would write very limited pollution coverage again get back into the market to some degree and when they did that they made it extremely specific it all has lower limits and there are many qualifications within you trying to gr expressing the intent that we do not want to be in this in its entirety we are going to specifically define precisely what it is we cover and what we do not cover and i submit that value insurance did that with clarity in this case and if i may quickly judge this here i'm concerned that you don't understand my argument with respect to rendering the term meaningless and let me see if i can expand on that if you adopt the discovery rule you have written out the word commencement pollutions because discovery has no relation to when their release of pollutants commences the two simply aren't the same thing such that if you have a rel knowledge requirement on it you have literally taken the word commands out of the policy now when you have a language saying the insured records are not tracked  what you addressed need a point raised by your learned counsel opposite that it makes no difference whether it's a condition of coverage or whether it's simply a condition which report only suggests that this is something that is not truly a condition of coverage ricardo's where they put it in the policy it's really an opportunity for the insured potentially forfeit coverage  insurance issues are always difficult you know for hundreds of years because language oppose these changes if there is no law on this particular general principles that decide the case we have this new language or should we sort of try this issue it's my second question to the oregon supreme court which might or might not i don't have a specific position i have some observations that you may wish to consider in other matters wajid been remanded and i believe one was the checksum and painting but please don't hold me to that because i wasn't prepared on this issue the last time i believe that the ninth circuit certified in issue to the oregon supreme court what what they responded to you with was a recitation of the hofmann rules and asked you to apply t and i suspect that is like they way you would get it that they would not decide the matter but rather inform you with respect to the rules that we already have before this cortical is going to give and so my suggestion would be that