they believe the court the court's dismissal sue a spontaneous on summary judgment was not proper there's a number of reasons opponents believe the decision should be reversed each  n and opponents believe that's the factor in terms of the legal issues the according satisfaction doctrine simply doesn't just not apply it doesn't make sense or under colorado law which is controlling here for there to be in accordance that is faction there has to be a meeting of the minds what that means is the parties have to understand what it is that's been negotiated and what what it is that is being given up if anything in this case you have a statute that requires mandates certain  that's a ignorance of law there's a lot of in forcible agreements in which one party or maybe even both parties don't know about some of the legal intricacies but what distinct wish is that you said this is just like any other contract like any other contract ignorance of the law typically is not a defense that doesn't vitiate a meeting of the mind so i'm having trouble understanding why it should vitiate this type agreement in accordance and its action honor it's a good question and i think in the insurance context we have to take that into account the insurer has a has a duty of good faith and fair dealing they have to inform the insurance of the scope of their insurance coverage and i i think if you look at the statute there is no way that it can be complied with unless the insurer asks for title actual title and registration information from the insur midan that they don't do that they pick an arbitrary number which in the plane of sids situation was low and pay it with with a stamp this is the state and regulatory fees we owe you and it includes any political fees so i think in the context of an insurance claim a total vehicle loss claim particularly where the statutory mandate is bundled into a total loss claim with a larger property property damage payment at that i think i think insured whether they need to say there's this statute that says x or not i think they need to ask the insured for the information and say to adjust this claim we need the actual title and registration information that you incurred when registering the vehicle this and i think and i think that would say that plays against the point that it's ok for someone to not have knowledge when entering into a contract there isn't a contractual agreement here there's a payment and a  deposit but i think it's distinguished from the example you gave in those ways i think it is also important to point out that the course of conduct your by the insurer makes an insurer believe inaccordance satisfaction if you know back to your original explanation of why there would be ignorance of the law and that would somehow vitiate in accord that it's actually based on what you just said that's that's where the decision has to be may i think that that's that's a part of it i think the important satisfaction doctrine also requires and there's obviously language in cases standing back a century right and some of the cases certainly what the times can time and some say something more along the lines of what the defendant contends but there have to be an action or language by the parties releasing the obligation under the statute to guide anything that would suggest one way or another that they had complied with the statu arguing that that was somehow an implication that any appreciable fee income posed any statutory obligations or are you just saying something else and it's in a something else what exactly is the point of negotiated and then we started a number of cases of saying there has to be a meeting of the minds and both both sides have to be apprised of the facts which which i think is the situation in a number of the cases where in accordance satisfaction defense is upheld and it is an affirmative defense where the defendant has the burden and and and i think in this particular instance if they send title and registration fees i think it's a are very compelling as to why there can't be an important satisfaction so you're saying that a basic title and registration fees in your clients would have been on notice that they weren't getting the full amount for their title and registration besides the amount that included on that line was not evil to the full amount that they paid to certain you know significantly more in tight on registration fees than what's on the line but because of the vision description that i think is an omission under these circumstances i think they weren't related to fact there so the fact that they were owed full time on registration fees well that if they were oh that goes back to back rights earlier conversation about the fact whether they are right knowledge of the statute unless there is some sort of effort by the insurer to collect the necessary information to handle the claim and i do believe they have a duty to do that under colorado law your honors i just also i'm running on time i just wanted to point out there also were notice problems with this with this process issuing an order to show cause a shorter time in the summary judgment statute provides for any kind of submission by either party opposing started judgment there was no reference to s and and i think there is don't lay in responding to the efforts of mr pierce and mr mcrae once he realizes there's a statute there's de lay and then there's also a sort of  your morning your honour's may please the court my name is kimberly coaches i am a partner at everest at sutherland and i am arguing here today on behalf of defendant happily geico casualty as the district court correctly fact and your honor noted this is a situation where geico explained to plaintiffs what they were going to get and the plaintiffs excepted that these are the exact type of situations where the doctrine of a co satisfaction bars the claim the facts this case are not in dispute this case involves two total loss insurance claims submitted by playing to stick iko and then with respect to both claims plaintiffs and geico heavily negotiated these claims in protracted negotiations this wasn't a take it or leave it approach to claim settlement when the negotiations were concluded geico issued a final total loss settlement explanation letter and form that contained an amount of fees that were going to be paid as part of the claim these plaintiffs were were very sophisticated insurers and submitted a lot of documentation and information with respect to both their claims and  the date that the cli that checks for cash or that the checks were issued but at least do not dispute that geico issued payments in the amounts of the settlement forms and that those payments for cashed so that is japanise yes and discovery closed in this case well before the order to show cause was issued by the court relating to the me shekh decision so this isn't a situation where there is going to be a lot of facts i'm covered or any additional facts uncovered because the records closed at this point and has been closed for some time and you have a summary judgment motions do we did have a schedule for separate judgment briefing at the time that the court issued its order to show cause class certification was it was fully briefed and it decision was we are awaiting a decision on certification and then summary judgment would have a summary judgment briefing was going to occur after certification and you brains to corn satisfaction i yes play just primary argument against the application of a court and satisfaction is that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties because scientists did not know that with respect to at least one of their claims there they entitled to additional fees under colorado statute or that geico should have provided specific information about the colorado statute issue but as your honor said no to it ignorance of the law does not bar any application of a court and satisfaction absolutely no requirement under the statute or otherwise that geico even disclose that it is including fees as part of the total last element so here what we have is geico disclosing that in fact it is including the applicable fees it's doing that both in the mccracken what you see is you see that the court found that even in those situations where at the time of the settlement the insured thought that it was receiving the appropriate amount but the law was clarified after the fact to clearly demonstrate that the insured should have been entitled more even in that scenario the doctrine of accordance satisfaction was found to apply and that is much more regis than a situation here where the question is not whether or not we disclose but whether or not we paid the correct amount pledges also argue that respect to one of their claims they conditioned acceptance of the settlement payment on the exclusion of fees but that does not also bar the application of a court and satisfaction and similarly the fact that there was no explicit release in this case or specific release language that likewise does not bar the application of a court and satisfaction in this case as this court found in mccracken and further public policy supports the application of accordance satisfaction in this type of scenario that goes not asking for a per se band or a per se rule or blanket rule that every time an insurer catches the check according satisfaction applies what  fact that they were paying state and local regulatory fees as part of the total loss settlement and they and they disclose what while they disclose how much they were going to pay for and a regulatory fees but they did not say you're entitled to x amount in state regulatory fees as a matter of statue and this is what we're going to pay well geico believes that what it paid is the amount that it was required to pay under the statute which is why geico pay that amount but yes geico did disclose the fact that it was paying certain fees and there's no obligation in the satch it for geico to use to citic language or words to indicate that there's a statute so any guy goes  being what it paid on on that line item w that's correct your honor that's correct not what the issue is before the court what the issue is before the court is whether the doctrine of a court in satisfaction applies and here there are sufficient acts and declarations looking at the claim in its totality to illustrate that the plaintiffs understood that what geico was prepared to give them in settlement of the claim then they accepted that settlement and they cashed the check and that's what i want to know that understand i mean what i understood coming you know number clarification is that geico was saying this is what we're prepared to pay now that can be quite different from this is what we are legally obligated to and i thought the whole dr newport satisfactions based on ins in essence a settlement saying this is what we're a step back to with respect to their two claims that issue here and respect to one of the claims we paid more than the other claim in fees so this is something that is negotiated and was negotiated with plaintiffs and then with respect to the nd claim we offered and did pay a certain amount for those fees and respect to that nd claim plaintiffs did submit information about their title and registration fees and actually they had retained counsel and there was a lot of back and forth about the amount of fees that geico was willing to pay and what i did was it showed plaintiffs in the settlement explanation for what it was willing to pay in full settlement of the total loss claim ok well send willing to pay is different and this is what geico said this is what we're willing to pay your respect to know whether you could have gotten more not that's not the point this is what we're willing to pay that's absolutely right your honor and that's demonstrated by the fact that we paid a different the nd claim but words there you said there was documentation actually smith wrote that quite right that that's correct scientists were aware of the statute and asked for additional amounts ok yes there was these were very protracted negotiations heavily negotiated by plaintiffs and that's what makes the facts of this claim so unique that's why this wouldn't have any sort of a chilling fact or anything else this is these facts are very specific to these two claims and the doctrine of a court and satisfaction appl claims thank you your honor we ask that the district court's opinion be affirmed thank you counsel had no idea about the statute and that plays into the public policy argument here if if this of according satisfaction affirmative defenses are held any insurer could put one dollar for student regulatory fees on a total loss settlement have parties that are settling claims under existing law and they're trying to come in after the fact in our new settlement agreements after the law has changed the those those cases don't have any importance here and i think one other to issue summary judgment sewer sponsored in response to an order to show cause when there is no mention of disputed material facts there is no mention summary judgment and there's numerous unresolved issues that need to be dealt with reversal is clearly warranted here are right well thank you counsel three arguments cases that tha