objections to that request for award with our notations that there was co representation that the billing wasn't segregated that there was hard to ascertain what was being billed or for whom the court invited the prevailing party to to file an amended request which they did this appeal arises out of that award for attorney's fees from the amended request your honor our position has been briefed and i want the court's brief is not terribly linked the but our st position is that missouri law applies to this contract and the court the truck or did not in fact have the authority  and breach the prime contractor my client randy cantor would have had the ability to seek its attorney's fees it was silent as to the ability or the right of manning to seek their fees in the event of a breach of the sub contract misery as i'm sure your honour's all are well aware follows the traditional american rule that it lester is a contractor a specific statute you don't get your attorneys  if you wish and in this situation we believe that the contract specifically stated a choice of law provision agreed to by the parties which selected missouri law missouri law does not have a prevailing party award d of attorney's fees it does not have any flying j manning had entered into a contract which waived its right to seek attorneys fees by applying the missouri law specifically and by noting the my client mr randy tkinter would be able to speak their didn't secure that in the contract before the court and secondarily your honor our next point would be that arkansas law in this situation wouldn't allow d that recovery anyway because the same should we were paying money into the hands of an arkansas statute to be kind of difficult to decipher especially with a surety being involved here but as i read it generally arkansas favors unlike the american favors allowing attorneys fees to be recovered by the winner in a contract unless you're an insurance company and that's sort of comports with your argument but the wrinkle here at my mind is that as i read the agreement manning is ultimately responsible to the insurance  for those attorney's fees so isn't manning's really the party that ultimately going to be out the attorney's fees and therefore under at least the principle underlying arkansas law shouldn't your client be responsible assuming arkansas way to participate such as the prosecution of affirmative claims and and has continued or even handled garnishment issues afterwards in this the need to find and even drive forward litigation on causes it has no obligation to defend or protect in doing so it's seeking its own interest not that of the principal j m manning i understand the argument being made that a manning may have to pay granite reback for a portion of those fees as master surety agreements being what they are in the construction world however in this situation it's very clear that it is granite reed that is driving the litigation has been in control of the litigation the entire time has managed the litigation has managed how cool during the litigation not the council is managed in a bad way but the person paying the bills has more management over their attorneys than than we often admit to be the case responsible garnishment affirmative prosecution of counter claims and now seeks to recover its fees and doing so so your honor respectfully we believe this is basically i think we use the term cats ball that's not exactly the term in the construction industry that's a more labor industry world but it is effectively the situation in our view the granite where he took steps long beyond its required obligations and now seeks to use those same mechanisms to recover its fees which didn't have to take it when it did so whether manning has to pay them back or not or pay back a discounted rate however they should wash that out at the end of the day this is still granite paying its money to drive its interest follower and that is against the spirit and  the text of the arkansas statute issue and with the court's permission i'll reserve my last two minutes pretty well thank you mr willis apply missouri law you get no attorney's fees for manning but when you apply arkansas law you get an award of attorney's fees for granting candor takes the position that the beginning and end of the analysis is simply look at the contract the choice of law provision says the law of the state of missouri applies and that then is going to govern every aspect of this litigation no matter what the issue that is not the law at any time you have a choice of law questions competing results under different jurisdictions there has to be a choice of law d analysis the arkansas supreme  court set that forth in cooper vs cherokee village where they go through several factors one of those factors is in fact which state that the parties agree to as the form but there are other factors of the way as well the need to be analyzed such as where the contract was made the state where the contract was performed and the state with the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute so at any rate there has to be some kind of analysis when you're viewing a choice of laws here the truck court didn't have to even get that far because in a diversity action these of substantive rights of the parties are governed by the law of the forum here that's arkansas that includes looking at arkansas law conflict of laws rules and as we ply those the application in arkansas law and the application of another state's laws is only required if the relevant law would be characterized as substantive as opposed to percentage or so the d decisive question is is the issue substantive or procedural arkansas has long held that title meant to tourney's fees and costs is a procedural issue and therefore the law the form governs here that's arkansas and under this analysis that means manning is only on substantive issues and the court specifically found that attorney steve entitlement to cos is a procedural matter and it's less because the forms its laws and that's what the truck were did here are claims that the joint representation of manning and its surety company granite ri and the fact that granite ridge was forced to buy an ant's this litigation because of the financial inability to pay by manning that that somehow prohibits now manning's ability to recover its attorney's fees in this matter now to put things in perspective can there wrongfully terminated manning under this dollars and then we spent the last five years fighting about this and now this day kindergarten tries to say well you couldn't afford to pay the tourney species and your surety paid him statute clearly a fear reading at that statute indicates that is it is designed for and intended for this congress just gets between policyholders and their insurance companies hey if you're a kid if your insurance company doesn't pay you as you read through that statute don't paragraph a one it says it they shall fail to pay the losses within the time specified in the policy and shall be liable to pay the holder of the policy so the intent is an insurance arrangement where certainly the legislator wanted busy to make sure that at the end of the day a policy holder didn't get stuck paying the interest companies buil instance that is referring to tender be liable for the attorney's feet incurred by an insurance company just a literal reading and that seems to suggest that granite really can't recover well again i think there's a unique and were under pointed out earlier it's a unique relationship between a surety company its principal and the obligation under a performance bond and so there is no where mentioned that type of arrangement or bonding or surety ship in any where in this provision they simply a defy the word surety as one of the many types of insurance that it might apply to but as you read bob jones case bob jones activated rather that that was they they enforce the the other way around where the obviously then was able to recover its attorney's fees under the statute from the insurance company or the surety company so in a way you are correct they have been forced that way but i think the intent of that is a little bit misleading over we're still dealing with a party to a contract and the issue before the trial court was who breached the contract manning or tkinter and they found that candor violated the contract and they awarded them damages meaning damages and as a result under arkansas law they're now in title to an award of attorney's fees the we shouldn't have to go back and see who funded the litigation or where manning had to borrow the money from so he could get this case across the finish line in order to protect his rights the surety company and manning have joint alliance in the sense that the surety company is only liable under its bond if manning is liable under the contract and so there the evidence presented the facts presented all this litigation was benefiting many yes the granite obtain some benefit from that but all in all this was manning's case to win or lose and they prevail and they're entitled to an attorney three or on this aspect of the case i would also point out as this court has found in read vs miles construction and many other cases that when you're looking at a federal district judge interpretating the law of their state and it is a permissible result that we're not trying to outguess or out predict what might happen judge moody analyzed the same argument on the trial level and found a permissible d result and we think that one should be affirmed finally d we get to the reasonableness of the fees in this case judge m asked us to reconcile provide detail time records billing statements allocate between granite and manny and and again we have to put a put in the work he knew the case the best he knew the complexities of this case he knew what many had to d establish to prevail in this case and we think in that regard his ruling is there's no abuse of discretion in there there's no was if i can start with a question for you why should it matter in terms of recovery of attorneys fees if manning still called borrow the money from the bank to fund the litigation fund the attorney's fees aren't borrowed the money from its insurance company will your honor because the statutory interpretation is one of strict interpretation and not of a common law development arkansas state for th statute with great specificity and as the court has already questioned today is your time short i'll step on the judge grounders question just to just to say in the key to the statute the words incurred by and then that say who eventually ends up having to pay the words in was drafted and your honors i think the concept of joint alliance was mentioned earlier that's what this was it was a joint alliance between the insurance company and the contractor the insurance company pushed forward the case that it had other up it may have had an obligation to defend under its surely obligations to its principal it did not have an obligation to pursue counter claims that did not have an obligation to handle garnishment issues or rd party claim essentially went further they entered into what i think was a joint a law and something that was well worded by counsel and as the arkansas case law has established on page nine of our brief i believe we have a string site i won't go through as i have thousand seconds the statute applies to surety companies the specific wording of the statute is clear that the arkansas legislature did not intend for insurance companies to be awarded their fees what we have here is