so because the nature of these policies you know you pay out and you don't get them for free policyholders pay extra money in the form of premiums to get that replacement cost coverage and if you look at it the policy language is i just we didn't present the facts we did and i went back to the records but that would leave those pieces of the apps for underneath those vertical interior walls that have been subjected probably not as much to the player but fire often does the least damage in these situations smoke goes everywhere but even more tell coals in the water that is used to put out the fire go everywhere and i don't think anyone would think if i'm buying insurance then you know when when i know replacement cost when construction in use and like kind of quality i get this you know saw zod for when all is said and done so that state farm can save money by not replace the entire floor by not selective and i highlighted it and so if we go to that further excerpt of record which is from the original record we have the testimony of the public adjuster who is mr me and if we go to saws and then you answer the question on the next page question what would you say they are owed in that settlement in the example they use in phase a well we've written it for a new for flooring and why is that because it's damaged for to getting ask your d m age when you have a fire what other things damage the structure of a water is a bit when some time water caused more damage than fire did then after a little time goes by because you have water case and all disputed inferences and we just do not believe not what we might have gone to trial and a jury might have said well gee you don't have enough experts you don't have an expert right on point so you lose and you know if that happens that happens but you don't hold it we don't believe it was proper to pull the trigger on a sorry judgment based on this record could the record have been stronger i will concede the record could have been stronger and it might have been stronger with a more precise expert who had done so d t or destructive testing economically logical and i believe what mr chapman is what i did is at some point they tore the house down and start over but then missed that misunderstands the nature of this coverage it is replacement cost coverage when that works in a two stage we're not going to have a remodel we're not going to be given the delay they'd that that issue is is moot at this point but the point is when they count you in order to for such a risk and sometimes it's the case that to put it back the way it was whether it's a car or house or anything else it's it's not necessarily what we would do it would not be so economically feasible sometimes across a whole lot more but that's what they're paying for that's the coverage they're the court as he was jan he in addition to my colleague carrots right away he represents state farm just casually companies i'll just get straight to the issues that we were discussing i'm wondering what i don't know before the horse here we have a situation where the states arms retained contractor local contractor can come into construction went through a series of estimates to repair the is a visual mismatch covington has stated that it's in the record that it would what it has the capability of repairing the force there would not be a mismatch and also in the record this is critical i think i was also state this in their briefing that if there is any additional cover damage that is discovered during the course the work state farm would pay for that so for example if the work actually come next year which it never did and that's part of the issue because i was destroyed several months later if the work actually commenced here and then we came to a point where there was a visual mismatch then if it was that what techniques you use or anybody guess what they're arguing and i just want your fair response here what they're arguing is you know obligation wants to put it back the way it was even if that makes not very much economic sense and particularly since an antique if the summary judgment with granted is firm how much do you own them and that that they're entitled to the value of what it would have been if they had wanted to remodel now do you have any case that says state farm has no obligation to worry about will if the moment or wants to remodel that yeah he's done have a problem with what obligated to be returned and less there was demonstrably no evidence of damage under those walls to the floor but if the pre last condition was these walls are resting on top of the floor then that's the there's an there's an error about whether there was interest in a fact here or it might have meant that there was conflicting testimony about whether this damage had been incurred and i'm wondering about the next most reasonable step here rather than making not the case and to make it a uniform to study pleasing finished floor if sometime in the future their insurance wants to prove that wall that is their decision  core concepts of this kind of insurance is summarized with the word indemnity engendered he means simplistically put it back the way it was and this is what mr maybe has defied too and this was the same testimony that was presented to issues so we believe this case comes down to a dandy and mismatching dispatching is a problem if it's a bigger promise or visual mismatch but a mismatch is a mismatch it's not indemnity thank you very much less anyone has any questions