after that determination the money that was awarded so was was awarded pursuant to an appraisal cars agreed to submit to damages caused by the hills turn to an appraisal  previous hailstorm and and and certainly it was a claim under the policy under the statute i did it did it was not resolved district court and that's what so wants this court to read into the statute and the laws look there that we just cannot do that we can't we can't put in words to the statute that don't exist and we and we resolved by upgrades all because there was a coverage dispute and with all the resolution of the coverage dispute the legal issue of appraisal would never have arisen right because the amount of damages was entirely utterly totally one hundred percent the pendent of the determination of the coverage issue which was then fact tried to a jury and the question then were you going to try damages to the jury or would you submit it to a an expert through the appraisal process and the bifurcation of that case does not in any way does it you know obviate the necessity to now it seems to me you're coming back to trend change the rules you know i'm not sure if the war on following the war the rule is that that that for for claims and for any client that's resolved by an appraisal proceeding over disclosure of an expert if that is being resolved unfavorably to the to the insurance company wouldn't they your my out of  something about that bothers me that now after after the agreement is carried out now you know you're going to use that for what the what the statute says your mother as a defense under the substituting itself or a jury and even if it didn't air in that regard there's absolutely no basis for any finding that that there was no reasonable basis for it now and certainly there's no basis for any that guarantees the right to a jury trial i haven't seen that minnesota constitution so i just wondered is there in incorporation keys i mean and then there may be one because i just thought of it last night when i was looking at it's and i'm wondering where is th incorporation case that makes a th amendment is incorporated as against the states i mean i may be just stupid because i i am on a lot of issues but i don't think i just don't know what the case is i don't i don't have a specific cite for your honor but but in that case the court is perry clear there were a number of factual bishops that the court looked at in the bad faith here in the court addressed different witnesses weighed evidence and made determinations and will be objective standard that  week lot of jury trial was proper whether the weeklong jury determination that there was coverage here is proper he's not disputing a motion for a new trial or a motion for judgment not withstanding to the verdict because those motions court does have that standard now i do want to talk about a couple of things and some questions that the court raised for mr will and that is what was the agreement at trial what was the context of the experts or it was our position that they were simply they were going to come in and testify how much it was going to cost how much they were going to charge mr cell up to repair is mr lucas said that intention that obviously required expert testimony we said it doesn't you're just going to tell of costs rather than go down that flight and whether rather than having that fight with the jury waiting the parties agreed that rather than have that fight in this benefit active because this jury was out for all of about two hours when they came back and i'm sure this jury was not happy with selective in denying this claim accusing mr selo but having said that we agreed to submit the damages issue to a just prior to the the evidence you're here mr blewitt is trying to collect gotcha or he went back and read the statute and came up with an argument after the fact the fact of the matter is the parties the court everybody agreed and understood is how it's done it's how it's always been done and that's how it was done here in all of those cases the porter acts as a fact finder and determines facts as to whether there has been a an objective violation of the statute d and b whether subjectively the insurance carrier didn't have a basis to deny or recklessly disregard that then the statute goes on to say in a war a text will cost under this section is not available in any claim claim was research was resolved and determined by the jury when it found there was coverage once majority phone coverage there were there were either damages or there work the claim had been determined at that point here and i'm and happy to answer any questions is this last question or this last issue raised by mr lewis at the very last of his argument on on the issue of interest and whether there's a claim clear in a number of in a sort of cases and i believe that george schultz reviewed those cases specifically addressed them here and came in the determination that when mr so this insurance agent contacted selective arguments this morning in the case is presented and the decision will be linda in due course and with that does that complete our calendar for this morning