right so the st case on the counters arch insurance company versus center plant construction company we have mr garcia for the appellant yes you are right good morning and we have taylor behl's when your honor integral part of the surety relationship is incorporated into and qualifies the conditions of the indemnity agreement that is the document that gives rise to the action before us anything that's not covered by the hartford bonds and issue so the simple question that it all relates to is whether we're going to get the contest the damages and the surety it's already admits that there's at least a one million and seven the funds that are related to claims that arise from professional malpractise and the carve out we're speaking about in the bond is one that deals with professional malpractise the bond literally says it doesn't apply indemnity agreement and from prime time it was slightly modified or renewed or a new version was an act there it was fresh and up the more recent additions were subsequent at so in other words it governs bunches of bonds st of all the definition of loss which in this particular case is covered by the specific bonds include specifically references to the bonds in the underlying contracts which give rise to the liability so in terms of definition of loss you can't think about what a loss is unless you consider how arises in relation to the bond nd of all nd of all in genetic it under the connecticut law p s e it and analyzes the good faith payment cases and the other cases  these general concepts and these articulated cases which have dealt with this you can't tell me exactly which thing they incorporate in exactly what language it's like you're reading a different language the bond over the years has become interpreted and the damages that's what you have to focus on so no it is it was a contractual it was a contractually isolator remedy which a lot which applies for delay so hartford could have not breached and still recovered liquidated damages from the contractor because it was a penalty address some of the issues that the court has raised in this questioning of mr garcia i'm surprised that the appellant seemed to nabbing taking the position that there is a question of good faith in this appeal when it was certainly an issue before the district court and the appellant's argued that art had acted in bad faith but the district court found in ruling on archer's motion for summ judgment that there had been no evidence placed in the record by the a palance from which a jury could reasonably have found that arch had acted in bad faith that is one of judge bryant's  act in bad faith or rather that they had acted in good faith in handling the claims presented to it under the various bonds that it had executed there really is no issue for this court to decide basically the a conceded their liability if they are conceding to it say the the the right tune while the overall project for the construction of the base for sale him was complicated and involve many different parties and many different agreements this case that's now before the court is really rather simple it's a straightforward indemnity claim and it's governed by the terms of the in them do you agree meant that the  that are made in good faith now according from the indemnity agreement underscore leaves that it is or was a liable for the sums in amounts so dispersed or that it was necessary or expedient to make such disbursements whether or that was executed in january of two thousand and sixteen so over a year had passed and if the party is intended to incorporate the terms of the hartford stadium performance on into the unsafe that and fire laws which is explicit in the because otherwise they'd be afraid of getting sued by or not having  that's right it would it would totally undermine the entire system that set up with surety in the construction industry but the way the indemnity agreement does kind of safeguard the rights of both the owners and the independent wars because while the surety is in the middle often and has an owner saying the principal has the halted and the principal saying i didn't the fault i did nothing wrong the is stuck in the middle and how is the shorty protected and how are all the other parties protected it's already has a duty to investigate claims independently i just listen to what the owner is saying just listen to what the pr that that claim was tried to the jury and the jury rejected the story hatches then deny center plans allegation center plans flames that the city had breach the contract and they clearly they clearly found that they had to file and that the city of parker did not reach the fine track because if if the city had breached the contract it would not have been entitled to any type might be generally accepted across the country but it's not what the laws in connecticut connecticut the p s c case and judge shay in the harbor in the hanover case recognized the st of all i'm sure he could breach the ban in which case the penal limit wouldn't apply in the c case i think they talked about limits on good faith because i can tell you a perfect because i tried the s c all through the appeal there are provisions in that case exactly like the ones in this case except one very meaningful difference and this is an enormous difference in buil qualification to the yes i'm about to give you was as follows the definition of good taste isn't what judge bryant found because she read in the review of it she refused to acknowledge and understand or even take into  into account the term of the underlying obligation so that when you say good faith it's ok to wrap it in the penumbra of some concept we have good faith but good faith is are tickler the cases is about the honesty of the performance is about the way people understand their obligation it's about the terms of the obligation and the liability that occurs with relation to it so it's a definitional problem certainly good faith is the label but that doesn't mean it's the facts right and the paragraph by heart my partner sitting