mr rossi was doing which was clearly to take the time to investigate engineering and sort of this problem when you say a lot when you see a lot of the case regulations and the statute says that any interpretation or any mandatory provision must be subject to notice and comment published in the and publication in the fair register and you know they didn't do that that's their rule the all you have to look at is in this policy is the law of this policy and they're saying now that well we can say seventy five hundred hours in a policy that we quietly secretly knew that's what was going on and i don't all coming in and being considered and it's not only hearsay but there was no indication that he had any expertise with henri or he knew what he was doing and i believe your honor that distinct difference between an action on a contract and an action on it as to what the justice conduct has done in fact that case draws a distinction that there is the government must substantial autonomy for marketing in claims adjustment motive to approve claims but actually the contrary is true particularly in this case where if they exercise that option to proceed by the adjusters report then by the very provision in the policy the case and how my finals approached it from day one and particularly after the ninth circuit ruling stems from how the ninth circuit approached this same issue eighteen years ago in wagner versus director theme in this and judges were not in force in the law so they got rid of what you've got in this policy according to the ninth circuit providence is a specific duty of corinth you were to file that proof of loss and he this court is that's a point ensured and the sterile judge is a matter of constitutional law and not in force that the next provision is this candid warning where we say you can't  regulation of these companies you've got the insured that are the beneficiaries of this contract you've got these companies that are issuing them both still equally before the law sure has his obligations i have mine any paid claim however the proof of last for where is this a seventy five hundred how do we fix that problem where where where do i find seventy five hundred i can't if i go to the policy it's not the policy if i go to the for decades i need to explain to you what is done this is a federal regulatory scheme that works in catastrophes it's been an operating system of twenty hurricane seasons and it produces a sliver of lo something about this it's working well i just need to be able to explain what happened you have this law that says to that sure just once federal program you gotta do this yet law also says you can't claim  penalize insurance companies for continuing to evaluate claims after deadline for our we can do one of two things the minute that's sixty days yes we can shut down every claim and say  we can let all those independent out just out there continuing to work those twenty and and hope that we're going to find some more planes that are failing and then we all go off to theme and get away you won't find a single case in the case here which were the truth which is the law this case is that is that i'll stay could waive the proof of last requirement then came back on rehearing and specifically amended the decision to state allstate is compensation scheme where both the adjusters and the company's profit by paying claims they took all incentive to lowballing yes you got something squirrelly here i'm talking about the system all right and i  otherwise a political state law there is no role to this presumption that state law would play a role here unless there's preemption is not correct you can get rid of the state law bad faith playing either under the commerce clause argument problem they've been doing it for decades they've been doing it beautifully no one has ever complained this point doesn't want to go to the executive branch he wants to do different branches to change the rules of the road radically so that he can claim but that's another issue that's a whole different part of perkovic one but just going through this clause in the policy it does require even if there's been a waiver by state it doesn't bother me at some point it does require may have wit you may have procedurally in the litigation waive that argument but i still have a hard time saying that that limitation which is contained in a claims manual that in the possession of revive this standard foreign policy and say you can only leave proof of last requirement if the last is under seventy five hundred and put it right in the policy but you're taking a regulation that was directed at the is that limited to only seventy five hundred dollars and my proposition to you is for the best ones that yes you can wait for them specifically as amended by the judge who wrote it state we are not deciding if this yes you can waive it is limited to seventy five hundred dollars that question is now before this panel today sixty two point two three i won which is a legal obligation on me just like of rule of law and therefore it's contained within the body of the policy nine j provision that they were going by the alternative when they deny the claim they deny the claim could you didn't comply with the sixty day so they fished imune on one side and then they denied on another which is a breach of the agreement that they were proceed by the very provision in the contract for the alternative so they were using the contract for their own fraud that is the company itself i like to point out that in that regard as to whether there they say you work with the adjuster and quote every state government has a department of insurance regulated by state insurance commissioners officers these are those that have policyholder service sections designed to assist insurance policy holders directing themas directing them on the wy all policies to go to the state and to the state and obviously that's the state regulation the state law but i would point out in the very recent decision in the gallup decision which i've submitted to the court argued by mr nielsen the court in a very fine extensive analysis points out the fema is without congressional authority to have the courts apply not apply state law there's not only not preempted there without authority to say you can't the fema can't apply state law on the congress party only congress fair game under state law believe that the contract whether there's a contract whether there's coverage is under federal law and the conduct of the adjuster is similar to the are checked by the state laws about face and that seems to be the ourselves and i think your honor well actually when you brought up that i'm against one of the largest casually companies in the world and under fema you know the agency and all stayed on each other's pockets i'm going up on