long is enough how long is a time period before it becomes unreasonable in the context of claims decision a lot of case law going back and forth and in my review the preparation parking i thought the most important thing i want to present to you and differentiate some of the other cases with the auto cases and the like in the context of bad faith most importantly is the type or class of insurance we have here this is disability insurance i know because i've done in the past my past life some judges disability that way the promises made that if you cannot work on a monthly basis the time fixed for those payments are of course monthly by the policy terms we will protect you we the insurance company the policy itself says that  the ninety day period turning table within the policy it also says if we don't hear from you and we're paying you and we don't hear from you the claimant within sixty days to reaffirm your monthly disability we think that's wrong so within the policy itself we have the confines of what should or shouldn't be deemed reasonable a month or two yes but justices for someone who's down and laboring down in the trenches this is payroll protection most good working people in this country cannot go more than two months without without benefits they cannot they are not of wealth to be able to sustain six months or here without benefits in the context of a promise that's found and that public policy though isn't just expressed in the policy it's ground in the california administrative code which i've argued to you which is two two three two point two four which specifically applies to this type of insurance disability which says the carrier  all of us that know that means you have or have a work ethic of your life you need to go over him immediately to an emergency room because you very well may be having broke which is of course what happened here but the point i want to come back to your honor and answer your question once they have that  lost once they have the initial required documents then they have to do something they cannot do nothing they must do one of two things tape or pay with a reservation of rights so that they could later recover that money if in fact it turns out that they made a mistake of saying they cannot investigate the claim while they're paying yes they got to pay and vested eighty can investigate and then determine whether they're going to pay whether they can for a month or two  if you deny benefits there's no we don't have one that says some specific magic month but my point you want is both the policy itself and the administrative record in california supported by mccormack  personal supported by a number of california cases says you cannot you have to act you act at your peril and you have to do so quickly is it reasonable for us to think that a huge insurance company a multinational insurance company cannot months i think i think that's thompson ask a very specific question which was what sort of law or contract do you have for for imposing on the insurance company and obligation to pay where where in the ministry of regulation does it say that they have an obligation to pay with the with the right of of recovering their losses you are the regulation doesn't say that you're reading a little nuance to well i'm interested about the point about that about the reservation they pay with a reservation they are in fact reserving those rights for themselves to seek recoupment if it turns out they paid an heir but the point we have to be sensitive to here is this is where the risk of harm is so great percent of all the benefits here well they did but he had already incurred attorney fees he'd already been out for a year he had horrible financial and economic loss and frankly is a possible councilman felt filing a lawsuit only heightened their their sense of physicians that's the key to the case other than the time period and i get letters that it's as if we agree with our doctor who says you're not disabled now he's the insured and by the way we're sending a copy of this letter to your doctors and have them respond one of  disabled not working had no money and he saw the doctor you can't get a neurologist to write to review a file and write a letter for free into these world it's it's unbelievable of the news that the carrier would even prostrate in that way our standard of disability is and as we know it's read into the policy by conformity with state law statute which is a mandatory provision so they have to apply their can more when i would back the six month employee did not know of those cases did not know of the than one inference to be getting to be gathered just as frankly from one who light labors in the field it is a very troublesome area when we have these we need your direction comment there was a wonderful he was claiming headaches and memory loss the doctors of course indicated there are several post traumatic stress for example but there was no indication anywhere that there'd been any trauma or any accident any hospitalization reasonable for the company to get medical records they immediately requested medical records in the next month they had all the medical records and they found out that the treating physician dr mitchell had only seen mr lopez a couple of times  two different things there's the claim form that the company does use rights they use in this case policy talks about receiving proof of claim right it talks about receiving information from you and from your doctor and whatever other information we need to determine in fact that you're entitled to benefits that's what the policy says and in fact the long line of cases in california and as interpreted by the ninth circuit indicates the insurance company does have an opportunity in fact an obligation to investigate a claim and to determine whether an individual qualifies for benefits before paying that claim as long as they reasonably in diligently pursue that investigations learn they don't look for things that are necessary for example and as long as they're not long delays during the case goes on at length about that was an individual that they had been paying for a number of years and that ultimately they have new information in the term and that he was not disabled and it talks in there about the cut the duties of the company's obligation to investigate but there is no obligation to pay a claim when there's a reasonable dispute as to whether that claim is payable and in that case also talks about the blake case in which the court said it's not unreasonable for a company rights that actually creates problems for the insurance for two reasons one insurer may then expect they don't understand where the reservation of rights is and therefore they expect that there's going to be this continuing stream of money and back it's what you're really doing is incurring a part imposing of a potential new obligation for pony insurer to pay this money back in the future and for a number of reasons therefore it seems like it more prudent to make that determination as promptly as you can and then once that determine is is determination made to pay or not pay the claim depending upon that and in fact none of the both sides are side in many cases talking about the genuine disputed issue and whether it's reasonable or unreasonable and finding that it's reasonable as a matter of law to not pay a claim in none of those cases they say it's a requirement to pay a claim that's questionable lopez had been to the emergency room and in fact that there was a determination that he had a stroke i submit that is not supported by by the record and in fact what happened is that the see the a that they refer to as i mentioned it refers to something that happened a long time ago so what the company was faced with is an individual who had an impairment as if he'd had an accident when he was eighteen and when he handed the cut off and he nonetheless work for the next twenty years and then w in his opinion most of the complaints were trivial and attributable to stress and that mr lopez was overstating his impairment now that goes back to the company and they had that reviewed because these doctors didn't really the sixty three percent above average in intelligence and memory and in cognitive abilities which should not impair him from perform his particular occupation still the company does not deny that they sent this information to the denial letter and did not have i did not tell him they were denying the claim that did not have the referral to the california department of insurance that sort of thing rather it was keeping him advice that they had an obligation to do where they're coming from so that he could talk to his doctors and do whatever he needed indicate that this man did what had minor and not severe impairments except possibly for stress which he was not receiving treatment for he stopped that treatment during the elimination period and they continue to investigate and we're continuing to do so when was filed which did slow down getting the doctors as having lawyers involved often slow things down but once that was done and their reports came back the company paid the claim now there's no dispute as to the facts and given those the company can decide whatever the form of law should be but once it lays that out and says here's what you must send us once you send it in other words complying with their request they've got a pain they can pay with the reservation second point i guess i've heard it but it was hard for me to accept that in today's world given disability insurance council and the carrier wants to argue to you that oh hang the benefit was a reservation would just create a hardship to the insured so that's why they don't do