what the three elements of the proper notice would be the third one says making claim for payment of a specified or determinable that's one key word determinable not of money and it goes on should be considered sufficient compliance so what the of money if you've given them enough information if you've given the carrier yellow freight in this situation enough information where they can go and investigate and find out for themselves what the extent of the damage is then you've satisfied the statu so now to apply the statute to the letter here and i believe it's not contested that the first two elements of the regulation were satisfied completely there's no doubt the latter and i can we can turn to the letter if you like but i think there's no doubt that the letter identifies the baggage that goes through the list item by item with model number and so on it describes the damage to each item nor is there any doubt that the letter spirits liability for the alleged loss and advises you will trade intends to seek those damages so there's no doubt that at least two of the three elements are factors in the regulation or satisfy you only question is is the third one which should be a dollar amount insurance the way it works is the insurance company knows well level claims person can handle the claim depending on how big the claim is and the settlement authority is affected by that and also what lawyers they hire whether they try out somebody new whether they use their stablished the cleaning person at the amount of the claim really matters to them and how they handle and it looks to me as though there's no way they can tell from the two thousand what or how big the claim is why doesn't that matter but i would say first it does describe the damage and it also includes pictures of the damage but even on top of that i would have with the yellow freight representatives actually at the site when the damage items came in and he expected the site you have money and two months later he was he was called on the telephone by represented and said look at the damn damage claim here for seventy to seventy five photographed by friends and they ruined them they got them so i would have some notion of the order of magnitude of the claim because i know something about old photographs and told who precisely the damage estimate seventy to seventy five thousand dollars received an invoice this is what it says you know we want to make sure there's nothing further out there but that that's our ask me right now  we want to give you a cite for that to the telephone conversation was testified today are zero eight five lines ten to fifteen and again and eight are two nine zero lines ten to items that says what needs to be replaced and includes pictures of the second item with the inspection and i want to give you the cite for that too that's at page four and a r s zero ports and inspection find out or make whatever record they want if they choose to do nothing that's not preferred fault that shelf rates fall hold on a circular into ninety looks like the critical words here are i call them i told them explain the situation to them that i had an estimate i wanted to submit for this claim which i believe they would be aware of and i wanted to know who i should address with who were tended to and really at that point they stopped me she stop because the woman he was talking to didn't want to hear it she wanted him to submit it on a form that's the that's the second conversation to the sales representative the first conversation before he called the the eight hundred number representative he called he called denver price and i'm reading on page a r two eighty nine part came on which shipment but what he probably should have done is to say i'm not going to get all i trouble for you now if i do that you'll get the information in court when i say to you and right now here's the invoice to pay the money they wanted it you know you could say under the laws he was a lawyer maybe he would have done something different but i think the bottom line is the ninth circuit says look you don't have to have a dollar amount it says oral communication scoundrel and even the dollar amount  abandon g i trucking at all is more fact i was going to address that first i don't think that there is this dichotomy where you have to either go with the statute or go with the decision because if you read the decision f fact it helps you as far as i can tell you don't have a finding of fact that they didn't turn the spreadsheet as they claimed and you don't have a finding of fact that he didn't tell them for a price the seventy to seventy about seventy five thousand dollars i'm not going to dispute that at all why isn't that good enough because whatever price said in response to that he's not in the claims department he's the local terminal manager all he's got is this nation of the co he tells them to call the right person they call the right person and the right person says here go and fill out these forms why isn't it fair to say once he tells denver price the company has notice it's a seventy to seventy five thousand dollar claim they have what they  need in order and denver price to helping me yeah shipper along by saying if you want to actually get your money i'm not the guy that can give it to you you have to go to the claims department to get your money so that's supplemental rather than necessary to let the company know that it's seventy to seventy five it's stands to reason and you touched upon this before and he's actually case law i cited on it that says that when you have a large company and just a follow up on your example of telling them the mover hey this stuff is worth nine or dollars if you want to file a claim you have to file it with the claims department especially if you are made aware by the company representative that that is what you should do and shouldn't a long arm of the project manager of a one hundred fifty million dollar project that he should send in this claim form to the right place it's also in the findings of fact that he had done this before he knew about the nine month rule and i dispute the version of the facts that was just presented to you about what it was yellow requested of him in filling out the forms it wasn't as they like to see there are forms were particularly origin was the problem was we need the reasonable request of sa please identify the pumps the got repair as being pumps that we in fact transported out there we're not going to pay to repair something that we didn't damage and that's what made it cumbersome and it's not because of our forms it's because of the ingersoll dress reforms that made that difficult for them to do but nonetheless they still had nine months to do it what is even more important is that as of march sixteenth which is just a few weeks every sense this letter he's still got seven month comply but into a different set of hands and put it on your form because that would have made it easier for us to say yes sir and get the clean paid it seems like unless he had reason to think he was shipping some of his pumps through different ship or it has nothing to do with making it easier for you to say yes and paying it just has to do with knowing what moving man or subcontractors you're whoever to blame and try to lay it off on if he had sent us the forms  entirely if you read the record i think way if you read the record he makes he writes one letter on september eighth making a promise that he's going to follow up he then follows up orally with the person who sends him to the right department they give him the forms to fill out now that's not appear to be an overwhelming arduous process from that point on he's got months and months and months to do this and as he testified himself this was at the bottom of his to do list he took care of this well we never even got to forget some of the factual dispute that he himself says he took care of it right before he left and went to another job he put this at the bottom of the pile and what i w encourage the court to look at is the line of cases that were abandoned in the reply brief grants of their district court decisions below but they are in harmony with export to sixty three drafted by the interstate commerce commission which essentially says look within that nine month period if you know the numbers you've got to send it in now there are certain circumstances where it is the kids or are rare but you may have to send a machine back to switzerland to be repaired not to know what the magic number is within nine now it is i think to go back to judge kleinfeld comment about what he found and what he didn't find because on that particular point you'll notice if you read it again that magistrate zimmerman punted as to what the examined the evidence and said as a finder of fact this isn't substantial compliance it's not substantial compliance to know on march sixteenth how much the claim is for and never follow up with the writing as required by the  regulation with which the guy says he's completely familiar and to slough it off until your last day at work that is not sufficient you know you don't understand one of the things is that the carrier in the situation when there's a delay is prejudiced because we're the ones we're ultimately going to going to have to paint the claim is provable and in order to conduct our investigation you would rather do it sooner than later while the evidence is fresh and this isn't a big problem for you let me focus on one phrase in the findings ok judge does say that when williams called price he says quote he says that williams quote told him the damage your mouth and i'm wondering why under and the jury would then be instructed they have to substantially comply they receive a defining instruction as to what substantial compliance means and then they get into iraq who are saying it is substantially comply or not and that is actually the thought process with the judge found he says as a matter of law it was actually as a matter of fact that this body of evidence did not show substantial compliance and that is what it what i'm working on the court in that sense you know first of all he sent it to the wrong person that is in coate and never followed up upon until he leaves his job on the last day from this project that goes right remember this last amounted to less than one half of one percent of the value of this project it was obviously the bottom of this list and he shot that off and there is this line of cases i have urged upon you general electric versus brown case sharpness versus atlas v and lines that interpret two sixty three which is the agency decision as saying that if you ninth circuit decision which appeared to adopt the scripture compliance standard which was then slightly deviated from in the earth type show in g i trucking a line of cases and hearing this discussion makes me wonder obviously the company seems to see my ability to pay something has this case been referred to mediation and all of you gone through that stuff here on the ninth one of the reasons why we had to concede liability in this case is because we never got a claim that we could examine until twenty two months after this loss so we could not work up or file to the extent we would have been comfortable going to trial anyway and when also when did you first examine the physical damage we examined physical damage ok on january sixth which was after a couple of the shipments had arrived not after all of them had arrived so i don't know whether it's one percent or ninety nine percent but it's somewhere somewhere in the middle where the other thing is that it did you have access to further damages there was sort of warranty and we end up getting a claim later on from english all or perhaps no claim at all the other thing if you put yourself in the shoes of a person who does this for a living freight loss and damage which amounts to approximately one percent of all place to the same plays and gets damaged six or seven times in a row that tends to make one that is not a random act that is and normally that points to the fact that it's not the trucking companies fault that would be either t the machines were not in good condition in the beginning or they weren't properly packed it's extremely odd when you do the math for six shipments that are so identical in a row that all have the same type of damage so when we look at this preliminarily we cannot look into the future and know that this is going to be first of all a legitimate claim a claim that's going to be filed by the constantly instead of the constant war or somebody's insurance company or a bonding company because this was some of the construction contracts we don't know where it's coming from if we were right seventy seven thousand dollars check to vernon or we could very well get a claim from interest all of a couple days later on the on the day before the nine months runs out and we're stuck so the claims finally rules the rationale for it seems to me that what you would ordinarily do in that situation is to either dispute the claim or require a hold harmless yes it's only because it's very common in a fairly large plane like this one that was assigned to one of only two people at yellow and one this big that once the plane comes in there is a little more give and take back and forth you know show us how much it is and things like that this is not sufficient to get that process started both sides agree that the claim is somewhere in the seventy five thousand dollars range i mean i've never posted three hundred thousand how to think you know i never doubted them we figured they were on the level about what anything so in light of that i mean look i want to get back to the what makes this case so different from from  regulation and after type show a written notice of damage coupled with a clearly communicated intent to hold the carrier liable plus the carrier's investigation so feiss that it's a written claim it looks to me and so you have the written notice of damage in that letter and you have a clearly communicated intent in the letter to hold the carrier liable and when he sent an inspector out that would be lost the carrier's investigation  i mean they were making flat out oral guarantees about the amount of money not it was just a toll of the amount of money was they reflected back that they were going to pay that amount of money so i think if you if you look at that sentence against the factual backdrop in small representative to examine so not only did they do their own inspection they knew the property was going to english all dressed up for repair and any time if they wanted to do anything more it was it was after disposal to do that at nine and seven it's unclear from the record to what extent gee i investigated this claim and i go on to explain why there is that question mark g i maintains that it did not perform the kind of investigation it normally would have been a case of one hundred thousand dollars claim put a rule that would permit a carrier to avoid liability by failing to investigate a claim even when provided with the information necessary to undertake the investigation bus we conclude that a carriage failure to investigate claims or pillory thoroughly to investigate a claim provided with the necessary information including facts to identify the goods which we have here and put the carry on notice to potential liability which is not that we have here will not prevent recover