before the court is one that on first glance it seems to be very simple ken a letter in eight under flood insurance policy that says this is not a denial of your claim in fact be a denial of your claim for the purposes of triggering the statute of limitations so this is a sin the letter did not say that i'm sorry let's assume the letter did not say that ok so  no statute there's no case and there's no policy provision that states that uninsured you asli the only case that has ever covered that question and that question was specifically ruled upon in the in the health vs bankers case in florida social so if the language but this is not a denial of your claim we're not in there then what could you stand on to say that the denial or proof of again that's true but i thought the specific question was regarding was regard to section a about that it's a denial when you get down to section c it is you can file an amended proof of fraud and know that there will be is not having taken any further action any other alternatives and you turned around treating it as a denial and filing suit we've been looking in the one year period if you look at section b it says you remedies under the policy one of the  you do not have to file another proof of was the proof of the last that i am submitting is the claim that i am making way to the extent that they have paid the claim what's now in dispute is the difference between what they paid on what the arises under the policy now i'm assuming that your opponent will tell us whether that's correct or not i have never seen a case that says that there must be eight a denial of a claim  and unfortunately between them and local council they dropped the broad hundreds and hundreds of cases which ended up being dismissed for failing to ensure discovery for farron two excerpts of documents a denial and you could've waited fifteen years before filing suit erie yes but that really because of the way the statute is written which is which requires there to be a partial suit without having been a denial of the claim now that only sets forth the time frame within which i have to file suit it's not a condition proceeding i can't bile sint at any time during that period of time supposedly had never made a coverage decision and since there was no agreed upon for the present parish or damage we couldn't have gone through appraisal so the only option that we had under the circumstances was to file suit but i'd like to go back and address a question about which could grant you some standing in  circumstances the court has said the appellate courts in new jersey have said it has to be an unequivocal denial and if the court if the insurance company gives any indication that they will reconsider this based upon additional information it is not a denial of the claim that and we've dealt with back situation where there were rockets that were filed two three years after after ross occur i won't go back  have to file suit under the national flood insurance program one year from the date of denial of the entire claim or portion of ok so when you exercise your rights under subsection b did that by filing suit within one year of the there was never a denial the claim that there's no there's no starting point about when you can file suit we could file suit the day after the flood if we so chose we wouldn't we because there wouldn't have been anything there wouldn't been a breach that point but but we there's no provision that says i have to wait to a certain point if they're in the middle of negotiating  claim and i am and they haven't made the claim and my client tells me they want we want to file suit because we're not happy with the fact that they had paid the claim that there's no denial well there was no competition is your your it risk if you do this though because you' fully arguably provided them with the information they need to either accept or deny and a court is likely to say that you know you can file suit but your your group of loss was not sufficient and therefore was never deny up and then you pursue it and they say you know you just didn't give us we paid you x amount and you didn't give us enough to say this is what we should have paid me properly rejected your proof of law so that's an issue that's  do that you can play that game that was never denied you're risking that if you if you proceed that they properly rejected your proven loss and that's the risk in any wasit how do we have here your point has to house coverage damage and add that the fuel jester provided the estimate of cover damage and then you were invited not to resubmit or do something new as to what was submitted with this group of ross partial denial or perhaps total denial if you don't have a other covered losses because the wonder says this is not a denial of your claim and even if it means that or it doesn't mean that and we're in a position where it where a of the proof of last information was submitted and what they submitted by it even there it says it cannot be accepted under the term solutions it's not an accurate reflection it's almost as if it's saying you have it you haven't touched all the cover damages they'll be considered any sort of like here's what you need to do we're trying to help you we're trying to be a friendly outfit here and i if i think they're mutually exclusive and ate exercise their rights under the policy because you denied the rejected the proof and lost that doesn't mean you died i mean that's correct we said if you have information that will support cover damages we will take it but you don't need an rejected was being rejected and that's totally rejected we are not paying that based upon what you submitted to us if you come back to us and give a stock imitation that can support that amount we will rec because the harm to the plaintiff here if we trigger something with harm it's with the rejection of what he asked for with it let's go back to the facts are we paid seventy five thousand dollars and building damages and fifteen i believe in contents before limitations on jurisdiction and and this seems on its face to provide for a private right of action when in this circumstance o damages that's it that's all he gets so they're right would be if there is no federal right other than a one year right that right of suit doesn't exist as court and it  back to what we have in front of us we have money paid we had an outlay of coming back asking for more through a proof of loss and we say no so that's done however if you have something more to show us that will satisfy the any simpler than that why do you think it was in there why do i think it was in there i think it was in there to advise mr bigley out of this which was counsel as well that was to consider information in other words we haven't we haven't made a final denial of your claim because we're inviting further information if it can show cover damages it sounds then is as if the person is saying there might be an ambiguity in terms of how this is all dealt with and you need to give us that the sup the support for the claim you sent your support called a proof of loss and you haven't done all you can do go back we're telling you  it there's nothing triggered me if if you if you were writing this up there can't be another sentence this more direct than this this is not a denial of your claim but there are two different things going on fence had breached the contract when they refused to pay the actual damages for the film out about we suffered that's exactly what they did they knew what they were doing this letter was not confusing the site it was not contradictory to them because they went and filed suit five months later did you can't we can't wave that we can and if the employee here drafted and an awful letter and again i take my position is that it's doing two different things maybe what it was doing they knew the effect of it because they filed suit but even if this was this were a misrepresentation of some kind of confusion about what was going on it doesn't come back on us because the statute the regulations cannot be w mr price you could you begin by if you're not fitting within the one year of the denial what right what right of action do you have under the policy not but i agree if a case suit was not of a private right imagine and the only one that's there is priscilla to a denial one year and if you say we're not within that what are you with then we're is the private weight of action we are within the statute of limitations is the point understand your question because it's it's there is no separate that's only role to can we can be brought is a breach of contract lawsuit for failing to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy which is exactly as a cause of action is considered as nihil of equation in terms of the federal statute and that's when the time is running the other is that it is in free standing state rock cause of action for untimely i want to be clear we are not pursuing any cause of action they are all they are all preempted by the federal statute there was never that was never contemplated it was never sued this is a breach of a doesn't know where your you say you have to your exercising your rights under the policy yes and i'm asking you where is the basis for your break on the policy you just stated it that i have a right to file suit question i'm assuming that under this under the federal program there has to be a specific grant of a right of action and you just indicated that the mere fact that there is a statute of limitations m