that if the dismissal was based on a single allegation in the complaint paragraph twenty two dollars the trial court would not know any facts outside the complaint was strictly based on that one provision and nineteen dollars motion admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint and relies on matter outside the complaint to defeat the claim because the court didn't rely on any outside matters to defeat the claim it was strictly based on a single  fide on the field a dispute as to whether the property was an iraqi pipe i don't know what you'd have to type to create your honor i think you cannot look at one allegation by itself you have to look at the complaint reason because state farm notice noted and i believe it was june rd of two thousand and sixteen that the the premises was occupiers on a part time basis so state farm records shows a part time basis which is not an occupier it means still occupied that according that according to your client because she said that she wasn't there for five whole months during which time the problem noted in june of rd of two thousand and sixteen that the place occupied on a part time basis rather then denying it at that point what they did was they continue to investigate they brought in an engine try to determine what though who knows better state farm or good the woman who owned the house whether it was actually by the woman who was on a five month honey well the woman who occupied the house but state farm has knowledge  again whether it was occupied part time or for a time you have an issue where state farm did not immediately deny the claim based on that basis what they did was they hired in the engineer the engineering firm came in and made a determination of damage by pipes however when that turns out that explanation came out of a caused the damage because  over the water in the pipes were turned off then state farm went back to the engineering firm and the engineering firm said desk correct that cannot be the cause and state farm again went back to the engineering firm a rd time asking for a cause and engineering firm said that we cannot determine the cause of this at this mosque and at that point over a year later state farm decided that they are going to deny coverage based on whether this is a part time or full not a claim then they should have to found that basis they should have denied the claim in june of two thousand and sixteen by continuing to investigate the claim by hiring the engineering firm by having the engineering firm go back three years and then after that last not be determined then state farm land decided this is this is the reason why we're denying this claim so if if one state farm decided that they were going to hire the engineering firm to determine the cause of the claim then at that point we believe that you know there was a waiver of any policy defense based on the part time basis we waiver by somebody who wasn't in the house when the problem happened who acknowledges in her complaint that she wasn't there for months and months and months the only bad faith here is by the plane that the insurance company will there be  somehow after his after state farm cannot determine the cause that state farm went back to the year to this no a year earlier gone so if state farm was going to deny the claim  that basis it would have been indeed to do have the engineering firms come in and do the investigation see farms out that their big city farms out that the engineering firm was going to give them a basis to deny the claim and when it turns out that engineering firms basis to deprive the claim no longer existed at that point state farm work back to the prior notice and that was out on a part time basis and because they went back to the original no a year  in the complaint in order to state a cause of action under section one hundred and fifty five dollars of the insurance code the only issue left would be the cross appeal where there was decide the merits of the plea just claim for coverage based on a breach of the insurance policy that was called one rather our motion was simply whether there was credible evidence that the pla true and those proofs create at the very least a bona fide coverage dispute according to time since i knew about it affidavit a plaintiff in her husband claimed and more than one occasion if they had been on a the different to coax that plaintiff and her husband gave for hollowing they were out of the country as just a slave observed effect that was certainly within their knowledge as opposed to state farm's knowledge pointed to a bona fide dispute  issue of her occupancy of the dwelling and then issue was material given that the plaintiff in her husband were actually living a short distance away in state or between january and may th two point one miles from fair question whether the drawer was a customary place of abode when she concealed the fact that she was actually living a short distance away instead of having a honeymoon or an extended vacation in mexico for five months i wanted a in market all annoy doesn't mean you can't have an extended honeymoon if this where you really go after after you've been married for more than a year you know but that's not what happen here of plenty of also claim during the examination or oath that the heat was left on but she never could provide the thermostat setting u maintained adequate heat for the towing over the winter if there were not enough cliffs and her husband also gave conflicting accounts about the circumstances surrounding the water shut off her husband st whole time sin of twenty six to know that the village shut off the water in two thousand and sixteen due to a large unexplained water usage then the plaintiff and her husband told thompson they didn't have any water bills because the plaintiff always paid in cash water off for nonpayment in june th to hug it shutting the water off in june th scene would be consistent with the fact that no one was looking there even on a part time basis but again the only issue before the court is whether state farm had credible evidence to form the conclusion that the premises were on occupied it was on occupied when it ceases to be a customary place  response to our motion if the evidence was incredible unreliable or lacking in substance you may have heard some rhetoric this morning from the place of empty rhetoric but the evidence largely consisted of statements dentist to the engineering report the engineering firm states that the pipe in the basement was badly corroded and it is possible that what happened is that the piping that led to the water pressure tank failed and fractured and that the source of the water would have been the well because the property had a well and it's possible that what happened was that the wall water came in through the fractured piping which in truth would have caused the sump pump to excavate and then the two would have been growing together because no one was visiting the property for one set a time through february and march and that's where the water came from until course they both failed because either a large amish or the motorist burned out but we do that from outside the the structure if there are no further questions thank you very much i think if i could i would reserve thirty seconds