ok mr direct the district court felt like the denial letter in this case did not have to identify the specific property we look for cases and could find none where what constitutes an effective denial letter under the standard f policy was defined neither defendant nor the court and i doubt this court would locate any cases that point with this issue so in essence it's a case of first impression this case you need to identify what property specifically denied in this case the letter said that they were going coverage for various items of the property they also didn't carry all stated that there was a line item estimate governing agency that oversees the standard flood insurance policy promulgated guidelines for mandatory enclosures and all that i letters a year after this event occurred wherein they said that property must be said to be specifically  policyholder of what is being denied sufficient to invoke his rights and obligations to pursue this lawsuit within  procurement misrepresentations there are no policy of procurement misrepresentations involved in this case what's involved in this case is a failure to deny a claim adequately such that obligation to pursue a lawsuit which your understanding of the purpose for requiring that property or items are specifically identified in a letter of the now what's the purpose of that i don't think he did i'm not sure i don't see i haven't seen a course policy any  westmoreland decision is relevant to the season to some point and that failure to repair prior flood damaged property in order to be covered under a subsequent but all states of motion for summary judgment this is an april two thousand and sixteen flood loss the plaintiffs decided to hire a public adjuster and the public adjuster did the notice of loss to all state hey i have a loss two weeks later on may fourth and during that time allstate had submitted on may twenty fourth twenty fifth a proof of loss for the building only to the public adjuster saying here here is what we've solved for the building damages the contents claim had not been resolved at the time they're awaiting one documentation because there was a prior loss from the year two thousand and fifteen and that approval loss was submitted to the sherrod state followed up a week later on june second saying we gave you a proof of laws police sign and see if you can pay you for the building damages at that point the very next day mr cabal of the public adjuster since on june third their own proof of laws same allstate i'm entitled to ninety three thousand dollars for my building incontinence as allstate is required under femurs guidelines to respond to approval lost within seven to ten days it denied that proof of loss the proof a loss is part of the claim they're not saying there is a lack of documentation nothing was attached to your proof of loss finally after the july  ninth july nineteenth that's when the second our letter was submitted an important important date here is july twenty one that's when the building claim was paid on july nineteenth mr cohen had signed no proof of loss in his public adjuster had submitted it to all of the way they had signed the allstate proof of loss for the fifty five thousand dollars two days later once it goes to the check process check goes out on july twenty one the claim is paid after that and the other key factor here is december later in the year the contents claim was played only thirty eight hundred dollars was paid on the contents that significant the building portion of fifty five thousand was paid it was about three four inches of water in the home from this flooding event only thirty eight hundred paid out of the contents the cuz a lot of the items the plaintiffs were claiming had been paid correspondence between the public adjuster and mr cohen asking for receipts and then voices from replacement of your prior lawsuit need two thousand and fifteen in a ton of correspondence between mr to the public adjuster and however that is not a part of the appellate record but as an officer of the court i do have to point that out our hands were sort of tied in this case because judge rosenthal did not allow discovery in this matter when we had the suit was filed and answered judge rosenthal under her procedures asked for a joint discovery plan and one was submitted to the parties exchange will twenty six disclosures at that initial conference judge rosenthal would into some of the merits of the case and that's when we brought up what judge we may have a time or issue here as well as approval last issue and then her response was ok before we get into discovery in litigation costs for discovery i'm giving you a deadline all state to follow us on the judgment on time bar and of you have this deadline to respond so discovery that was done was exchange of rule twenty six disclosures so starting with the july nineteen letter part one of that letter if you want to call it a part but that letter there's no dispute that they received that letter the first part of it is telling the policyholder we are denying your claim for continence because we need an inventory of the damaged property and in particular the actual cash value that's in bold in that part of the letter because the contents list that was submitted by the public adjuster in may had photographs in a list but it was under our stevie under the flood policy contents can only be paid under actual cash value meaning there must be some depreciation the second part of that letter is next we're denying coverage for various items because there was no prior loss and several of the items that you are claiming appears to be paid from the prior loss and it notifies the policy holder that we would like documentation from their prior laws in the authority to ask for th documentation is article seven k the final part of the denial letter is the building portion there was a detached garage that was converted into an apartment on of the rules of the federal program for flood insurance you have to have a separate policy if it was a detached garage it would be fine but you would be limited to ten percent of the building policy limits but the fact that it was converted into living quarters you have a separate policy for that it's and judge rosenthal had talked about the you first and third parts and had agreed with the plaintiffs counsel that most sense a partial payment was later made on the contents that first part somehow is not a denial of the policy well if you use that analysis then the second part shouldn't be either so it's not consistent but as courts have held continuing to a just a claim does not waive any of the policy provisions there are several cases where including the first circuit where if you continue to adjust a claim it does not obviate your requirement to submit a proof of loss for every dollar amount that you are seeking you must submit a signed in sworn proof of laws that same exact analysis also applies to any actions taken by the company continue to adjust the claim does not interrupt or toll your obligation under seven are or you right under seventy seven j which is the proof of last requirement and seven are of the policy or both under the conditions precedent part of the policy if the same analysis applies to seven j equally applies to seven  appellant is arguing is the fact that you've used the term various items somehow waives seven or of the policy and you're a stopped from making that argument based on the two fists or cases of morse a condo and monastery you cannot have waiver to stop all because of maryland heckler and courts across the country have relied upon the maryland hecla decisions and that since your flood policy is itself a federal regulation your choice of knowledge and knowing the law you can't claim ignorance i looking at the july ninth letter my client respectfully disagrees with judge rules and follows analysis of the july letter the july land letter was we you submitted a proof of loss the us regulations the manual requires you to respond to that within seven to ten days and a response was given we are denying your proof of loss you are claiming ninety three thousand dollars we're denying it because we need more documentation the lower court had relied upon to make the already decision the third circuit which my client disagrees that with the overall ruling of the decision and it's also distinguishable because in the fidelity had sent a letter rejecting a proof of loss but the letter itself says this is not a denial letter however fidelity still made that argument and said we think that denial because you filed suit in the court went through this analysis on the last paying the provision of the policy is that ok what if you reject the proof a loss you have certain rights under the policy you can go to appraisal you can appeal i it even went further and said narrowly interpreted this clause provides that a policy holder may not bring suit against w y o until after his claim has been denied in writing well that's the case that puts too much the should be put on notice a i'm denying that and why there's also the case we've started called this thing germane committees and with that case does is that it takes a step further from the prove a loss of analysis to the statute of limitations continuing to adjust the clain does not interrupt before the court  it is correct in that there is not a lot of case law about what the courts will say you must have x y and z to be considered a denial letter and i think the reason for that is i think courts are reluctant to state a bright line rule i think it should be on a case by case basis what if your letter says we are not paying you for your requests for any only because it's excluded in the policy doesn't say the i'll be brief when you ask me the question about whether or not there had been any questioning of what aspects of the personal or content claim have been denied it is my understanding had been i do understand that there was a lot of communication back and forth between the adjusters but to my knowledge none of the communication involved what is actually did not as a result of prior flights last secondly with regard to them legally on a decision it's still