his under insured motorists coverage i'm sure progressive casualty insurance he mr hicks had a two hundred fifty thousand dollar under insured motorist policy driver and he sustained serious injuries he settles his case against the driver mr can target in for one hundred thousand dollars and subsequently made a claim for under insured motorists coverage at most thirty five hundred dollars in money and a waiver of two thousand dollars and may pay the offer was clearly undervalued and the offer was based upon  there are no travel issues a material fact about a genuine dispute and whether there was a reasonable investigation as a matter of law what the tribal issues of material fact regarding whether  horatia there were those notations but there was no objective finding of an annular tear when he was six of the same variety of the same kind that he suffered when he was fourteen in any new money or except for a nuisance settlement offer of of fifty five hundred dollars thank you because of this one notation in the records a doctor rather but there is no documentation that progressive even asked communicated with doctors should pay or doctor howard herrera about their notation to see what their source for progressive had a duty to thoroughly and fairly investigate all the bases for government to to put their insured in seeing equal footing as their own interests they need to california law requires them to look at all the evidence and not ignore evidence that provides coverage and focus on only evidence that would state to under to support his opinion that it was egregious bad faith on the part of progressive to aggressively push their theory there are an unsubstantiated theory that politics was exaggerating his pain when there was no evidence to support him progressive claim of exaggeration to it was also bad faith to state that it was also bad faith on the part of progressive progressive and selecting robert wilson the same orthopedic surgeon who was hired by the defense in the underlying honestly and fairly select it experts to investigate its own the claims of its insured it did not do so of the dozens hundreds maybe even more surgeons that the progressive could have selected as its expert they chose the one expert medical expert who pined that upon his injuries were not caused by the subject that intoxicated driver they knew what his opinion would be they knew that he would essentially say that there was no need for additional money to be provided from the outset appellate progressive created an adversarial relationship with its insured and it was more interested in concocting reasons to deny his claim rather unfairly and thoroughly investigate  insurer has a duty to protect the interest of its insurer and it must fully inquire into the possible bases that might have support in the insurance claim now there is a public policy to have insurance claims paid out legitimate policy claims to be paid out rather than lead to expensive and time consuming the go she's in arbitration there is no dispute about coverage in terms of the client was covered by good morning your honor i am julia israel i represent progressive counsel to insurance company in this appeal and i will try to explain why i believe this court should affirm the district court in its r determining whether or not there has been there is a genuine dispute that defeat evidence is and the summary court says that is the court does not decide which party is right as to the dispute or matter but only that a reasonable and legitimate dispute actually existed so judge knew and when you asked what was the material dispute about the prior alleged prior claim to be prior annulus i would submit that that may not be a question that is directly relevant there is conflicting evidence whether it was a preexisting tear or a tear that occurred in this accident and it's exactly that discipline goes to the back teeth claim so i think it's relevant right i and i understand the distinction that you are trying to draw but in the face of contrary evidence if an insurer ignores that but focuses only on the evidence that goes in favor of denying the claim that's an indication of possible bad faith or a bit or biased investigation that would then create tribal issues on the back faith claim for purposes of precluding a grant of summary judgment would it not no it would not and tell me why because when if you look at it in this in a type of case like this you have to look at all of the evidence that progressive had and if we if we focus on whether or not there was a preexisting anular tear you have his own treating doctors call her and she base saying there's a preexisting tear you have the mother reporting to the chiropractor right the first chiropractor they see that he had a prior physicians and then progressive looks at the players expert because he doesn't even know about these claims progressive looks at the conflict between answers in an erotic tori's and the mother's admissions in the records and progressive house to weigh that and come to a decision in the dentist not that they were right but that they looked at it and had a basis for their position and an important issue to consider is that in a  forum progressive is adverse to it so true its own insurer it owns the insured a duty to do a full investigation and what i don't see anywhere in the pla argument in the opponent's argument is that the investigation wasn't fall progressive had a lot of evidence to look at and april brown in bergen her declaration sets out how she looked at it so she has to come to a judgment if she does that with her experience and in the lengthy declaration supported by evidence she sets out how she did that and and it's kind of the conundrum of this type of case of of course is in dispute there was quite a bit of prior that this is a sprain strain severe sprain with so i'm not sure i need to spend more time on that but there is this argument that progressive this honestly selected robert wilson robert wilson  and i'm not familiar with this so i want to know how these things usually work is it unusual or is it common to basically reach out and work with lawyers and experts or for clients who prior to the settlement their interests were used an expert in an under insured motorists case to decrease realises that's plainness problem he was going to decrease damages but i don't say that his opinion was in any way improperly procured or dishonest remarks i believe my opposing counsel made of to me a stunning admission that or that progressive had eight adverse relationship to its own insurer as a first party  e it has a duty to actually protect its insured interests it does not have the same role in the same duty as a third party insurer safeway had to to protect the interests of its insured and must fully inquire into possible bases that might support the insurance claim they don't have a duty to only look into the possible bases to deny the insureds claim hex suffering vehicle collision when he was six years old and notwithstanding the fact that there is no m r i and no all scientific objective testing the second part of it is that doctors x fully recovered within a few years and the record shows that there was no evidence whatsoever that appellant hc suffered any kind of the injuries that he was complaining about after the august two thousand