client whose insurance company the insured they are insured by x l i see if i can use the acronym or a i g it's me i g company because what makes the policy on used is that in the underwriting out of their spouse and you don't have to take my word for it because it was a i g witnesses and if you'll indulge me because i don't think our briefs adequately court the two witnesses that we cite the testimony  is whether or not the rejection of the starwars should have taken place and december of two thousand and three and march of two thousand and four or put differently whether or not a reasonable insurance would have accepted would be the failure in that one particular time to accept the souers but the point that was glossed over i think both alone in the briefing by is that its own witness can see wrongful act at issue here would you agree that the question is whether or not your client should have settled the plane back in december of two thousand and three or march of two thousand and four when they got noticed the stone were snapped yes ok and you're trying to separate here the bramlett litigation where the supreme court of texas held that the brain was to pursue a claim separately but didn't your that your client was told by dr philips lawyer fairly early on that she could a star in it was considering assigning his claim to the family which would be separate but then your knowing im but i will say your honor i want to i don't want to waste my time and your time with my points but i think you're hitting on this point i can't help if you were saying that he reading of that unambiguous terms of the insurance contract not what may have been deleted in application but the claim in clear plaque and white terms of the insurance policy  available under the policy in the first place whether coverage is available under the insuring agreement is the insurance responsibility to establish here are the insuring agreement states that coverage under the policy is limited to claims first meet against the insured during the policy period are you reading from paragraph one professional liability in the wrongful act which first occurs during a prior to the policy period and goes on when you go back and you read that language the to be evidence that during the policy period any of her evidence that the richmond i'm sorry to interrupt short because my question was a little bit different from the district court did not address that particular issue whether or not interest meant sixteen correct would take you outside of the general language that you read in paragraph one correct your honor was there evidence with this argument you made to the district court namely that endorsements should not apply because there's no evidence council became aware of any occurrence during the policy period but if that wasn't raised below i don't know that there would have been an opportunity to put it in it would have been the argument rai limitation of coverage in the insuring that the man and the exclusion under exclusion and the expectation that any claims or any forseeable claims prior to when you look at it and again i think you need to look at the language which state the policy does not tie to any plane arriving out of any wrong act occurring  inception of the first policy macrebennack knew that it had committed errors knew that if committed omissions do you agree that the wrongful act that's at issue here is whether or not it reasonable insure would have paid hours claimed back in december of two thousand and three and march two   the question isn't whether met her at that time knew or believed that the claim would be meritorious it's whether or not they could forsee a plane would be made but on the wrongful act question isn't the question whether or not a reasonable insurer would have paid the amount back at the time and how can you say there isn't at least an issue of fact as to whether or not a reasonable insurer would have and paid it when that would have paid the amount at the time so the wrongful act taken it two steps removed is tied to what a reasonable insurer would have done i'm following you however she is not whether you know they would have paid it a reason we're sure i would have anticipated and again to this day my client doesn't believe committed there and it was going to be a trial in the underlying case of whether there was