doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction and i'm sure i don't have to tell the court how important it is in our says that these are your client good like they claim be covered by the settlement agreement and renewed promises if that were were true your honor then we would be entitled in either state or federal court just saying no our policy doesn't cover stock replacement but the understanding on the part is that whatever policy she had however the terms changed going into the future that for years would not deny coverage to our cycle times as long as they were medically necessary and  both parties is that what this acknowledgement and agreement meant was that in the future for his would be ok these kind of claims and if this screwed up which clearly didn't hear and if the parties needed to if they couldn't settle it themselves they would go to federal court and ask one or the other asked to have the settlement agreement in force and the language in judge anderson's order clearly says that questions of enforcing the some agreement  retained jurisdictionally retained by the court and what happened in this case was precisely i believe what justice scalia wanted it to be of what we did going forward which is that you would have confusion judge bog down in the state court was very confused about did he have jurisdiction in this case or not and then entered in order to sort of assume some things and then judge chance through the federal judge took those into soon as those into his order to get to the point where they said well this isn't really of the retention of jurisdiction and the reason we did that is because not that the well let me say when it first started out it looked like they were moving to enforce the sound agreement and in these parties that's it's not that they could just say we're entering into a specific contract everything will be enforced or are you saying the fact that they have a meeting of the minds on the meaning of their policy deny something is medically unnecessary yes it goes to the federal court because a federal court retained exclusive jurisdiction and the reason is it's the sound of the green men that gives the contract the other contract the policy it's meaning  the court went out this is a jurisdictional issue and said he lacked the jurisdiction to decide as case based on what judge bar and sat in the state court which is a well known one here is asking for damages based on nine hundred ninety nine backwards which is the date of the settlement agreement the problem with that is judge bar and although as much as we appreciate this order is not the final say in my town it's now on appeal maasdam supreme court and it's as likely as not that the supreme court is saying no we think you can ask for all those old damages and that clearly would be in violation of the settlement agreement plus the other matter of federal state policy to know which court has jurisdiction over a given issue and the bargain that my client struck was that in return for paying a good sum of money  for a case in where they again had agreed to pay for the socket it's not that these were it has not all been paid for they have what we're talking about is time you should use that you know that happens when you have a big company mistakes and make but they i got this and part of what my client wanted in the future was to be able to say yes we've settled this you get this if it's medically necessary and that's why when they started when and when the rains council started talking about well we're going to get this whole course of that takes from my client is the clear agreement and the sentiment that medical necessity will have to be determined for any medical for any stock replacement and so what they're asking for is inconsistent by saying now we're to take a bunch of money and assume all these things in the future they're taking away my client's rights to assess medical assessment they're taking when my client's rights to see that premiums have been paid all of those things which come into a question that fortis agrees that the above referenced policy provides coverage for medically necessary replacement sockets and then he goes on to say there for in the future we must pay for these replacement parts when claims are made under this policy mr harris or mr cousins to do precisely what they did is send a letter and say wait a minute but they failed to do in the letter they sent here was to mention the settlement agreement but once my client figured out the facts they take and they've now got another no in their computer in the future paying in the future that was clearly the understanding of the parties and that's why we think because of the exclusiveness provision of ancillary jurisdiction that this court put into effect is planning and that there's really no question that this should be decided in the federal court and unfortunately judge shastra has to look at jurisdiction rather than at the underlying questions and so it needs to go back to him so we can actually interpret the contract  for this changes the language of their policies it does that unilaterally it's not like i have to sign an application and get a new policy from time to time that will send out a notice that says there is a new policy that replaces the old policy under montana law they can't change anything in that manner unless they give specific notice of the specific change and say for instance this one to cover that was covered before but the period language that change actually went back to earlier language that they have which makes it even more clear that there's coverage but it doesn't matter because they can't unilaterally change the government but by sending out a m could happen that would result in them i think including one of the things that happened in two thousand and two is that life and her employer was provided her with some additional coverage which became the primary insured and so one of the terms of the policy that relates to call insurance just for this was the second they're even sure and only had to pay like five thousand of the eleven thousand dollars fine but all of that's comes under the insurance policy the promise to pay is an insurance policy an insurance policy the requirement for medical necessity is an insurance policy although i admit it was also mentioned in the settlement agreement cold payment provisions or in the insurance policy the fact that you have far and i think it was because of the status of the state court case because i think that was about the time they got summary judgment on our repudiation plan and that was point after the supreme court there's i've probably said enough you obviously understand the case there's a real temptation to talk about the complaints about a letter that my partner wrote in which they attempt to shift  burden to do their own investigation to our law firm my partner montana law is very clear and the church cannot refuse to pay the fine without conducting a thorough investigation based on all available facts or times in eight years claims for these five replacements came up four times they were denied actually if you look through the appeals process nine times t court didn't do that and we all knew that that's why it was so easy for jack chaffed from the state that's not what we did and that's who knows better than anyone else we thank them for clarifying because it wasn't clear that they were suing in state court for breach of the seventy greenman and then it became clear in that's when we said well there's exclusive federal jurisdiction over this issue everything else has to tag along and this should be decided and settled for where the initial settlement occurred and that's been our point all along is that it's a pretty clear question of the ancillary subject matter jurisdiction as the supreme court decided the issue back in  neither party objected to that that was the understanding of the parties and that's what happened that's what they say their case is about and so it should be in federal court and that's our position on thank you not as much as any for the question