case number four this morning is cook against jackson national life insurance under section one fifty five of the only insurance code despite finding out jackson who in light of what happened in the past two cases you may not be surprised to learn that we have a question about jurisdiction certainly o the question is is there a final decision entered by the district court there is a thing in the appendix called judgment but it does not say what relief book receives doesn't talk about how much he receives under the policy doesn't talk about interest doesn't talk about attorney's fees it doesn't qualify the relief and it's a pretty fundamental principle of appellate practice until relief is specified there is no appeal yes your honor i believe the issue with that is under applicable law it was a final order notwithstanding the fact a specific award of fees although been granted this specific amount has not been entered there is no amount for any aspect of the really it doesn't say that the plaintiff gets two cents nothing is what it says that a motion for summary judgment is granted but the granting of motions is different from the award of relief yeah i believe that was if anywhere was wrapped up then in the fifty nine emotion that was granted says that the a tour essentially a distinction in the law between attorneys fees awarded as part of the original remedy and attorney's fees awarded under a separate attorney's  understand the illinois doctrine under two fifteen code five stroke one five five attorneys fees are awarded as part of the relief and that means it's subject to the rule that they have to be qualified before the case can be but the parties haven't addressed this issue there's no recognition in either side's brief that there's a potential problem with appellate jurisdiction have the attorneys fees been quantified even now they've not well has in the previous cases we will be inviting the parties to file jurisdictional memos within fourteen days certainly our life would be easier and the lives of lawyers would be easier if you followed the courts rules and seriously addressed jurisdiction in your briefs yes you may proceed on yes under section one fifty five sanctions are not appropriate when a party presents a good faith bona fide defense therefore prongs that are used to evaluate that stand anything one of which is there any debate in the district court about what the law governs the award of attorney's fees  sanctions in federal court i ask that because both sides seem to assume that state baudot those and they seem to assume indeed that state law governs our standard of review and the supreme court  section one fifty five sanctions or the law applying section one fifty five would be applicable and some no there was no discussion as to that it at the underlying indeed this also affects jurisdiction if attorneys fees are being awarded as a sanction that must be under federal law if they're being awarded as part of the merits recovery on the policy then it's a question of state bar perhaps but also we don't have a final judgment yes you can see how these issues are entanglement understood i can address that in the supplemental briefing before prongs that are used to evaluate whether there was a good faith bona fide defense under section one fifty five are was there a bona fide spew did the ensure a certain legitimate policy defense did the claim present a genuine legal or factual issue regarding coverage and did they ensure or did the insurer take a reasonable legal position on an unsettled area law again you only need to satisfy any one of those four prongs in this case the district court explicitly found that jackson acted in good faith about the entire litigation it quote consistently took a reasonable position on an unsettled area of law and its legal basis for denial of coverage on the policy quote remain consistent throughout the litigation suggesting jackson's good faith belief in the merits of his are good and well we're back to my question i don't see what that has to do with section one fifty five unless you're thinking that illinois law can govern sanctions for misconduct in federal  that i simply don't see what state law has to do with the question what may or must be attached to an answer or whether under rule twelve something has to be attached or whether there are sanctions under rule twenty six g three which the plaintiff has cited state law can't possibly be governing those issues any of i don't disagree on that that was again the basis under which the court awarded the if it does not your honor i guess from reading the tea k k usa case which was a seventh circuit case which reversed an award of sanctions under one fifty five section one fifty five that the court did not say they had no authority and that they explain why the section one fifty five did not apply under the circumstances so it never occurred to us that that never ordered to you is in bettering all might govern the behavior of the litigants in federal court it didn't occur to us that that  might seem to have a jurisdictional consequence if they don't discuss it don't resolve anything about it certainly on appellate cases resolve the disputes presented by the parties not things that might be lurking in thank you mr marks mr pollack had to engage in misconduct but section one fifty five itself doesn't talk about misconduct salt did did you listen to my question do you have any comments about appellate jurisdiction there does not appear to be a final decision by the district court right the amount of relief has not been it's not simply that it's not recorded in the judge but it just hasn't been fortified it has under the the breach of contract it hasn't under the section one fifty five that's now before the court i mean they're appealing they're not necessarily appealing the amount of the judgment they're appealing the award it also didn't make any difference count so it is a fundamental fifty four b to allow that's the holding of liberty mutual against whetsel by the supreme court it just can't be done and if that's ultimately what's correct and i guess the appeal goes away and we wait for  yoda finalizes really you you will have the same opportunity in fourteen days to explain to address subject matter jurisdiction and i hope that both sides understand is at least potentially in tangled with a question whether state law is properly used at all into that because a genuine award of federal sanctions under say r twenty six g would be checker play appeal it wouldn't be part of the judgment to begin with but this appears to be something that was in the judgment it can't be a rule twenty sixty three order because there was no order to compel under rule thirty seven act which is why this is all very odd and we did raise that issue that there w section one fifty five itself talks about costs and it doesn't talk about that it's sanctioning the insurance company it's at says that where it appears to the court that the insurance companies vexatious non reasonable may assess them as costs determine costs in federal litigation it's just really straightforward ok well section one fifty five does say that it applies to any action but state scoffed there shall be an award of expert fees and all entrants cases in both state and federal court if the state law said that it wouldn't work in federal court there's something about the supremacy clause if nineteen twent insured to litigate and in the classic case of one fifty five the vexatious conduct is the denial but one fifty five i'm not aware of any illinois cases in which it's used to govern litigation behavior which in federal court your points out is where the federal rules of civil procedure would kick in so don't the substantive and procedural points kind of dovetail here to suggest that when fifty five isn't even trying to reach out whether you're in federal court or in illinois court operating under its ultimate argument is that the judge's findings that there was no evidence to support jackson's position that under illinois law that means that they can't have a bona fide dispute that they never bonafide dispute then it was vexatious not reasonable cases that we cited that the counsel that the one one praises english one is latin but they really are the same thing but that but the illinois courts that we we cited to say that the basis for whether there's a bonafide defense is whether there's i haven't any evidence to support it and that's what judge to steel it ruled on the breach of contract portion of his ruling as up there was no evidence there was nothing in the policy that said that the monthly payments were in installments towards a quarterly premium there was nothing in the the f d a applications that jackson keeps calling contracts there's nothing in the communications with charles cook and there was nothing in its internal documents to suggest that that was the case and so we cited several cases all of the cases that say that when there is no evidence to support their position even if it's something that they truly believe that that's still not a bona fide defense  so i believe that's what you know our ultimate argument is not necessarily what judge to steal world about the litigation conduct but what he rules on the breach of contract should govern whether they actually had that i think that the case is definitely going to have to come down to the supplemental briefing on the issues and have to answer any other questions that you may have but otherwise stand on your arguments and supplement our brief and then see the rest of our time thank you mr pollock even further mr marks all right thank you the court invites the parties