the correct statute was one that was inactive in zero three did in fact require notice to be unsure of the change at renewal still that does not kill our case in this case we had submitted a summary judgment motion just asking to judge to rule on the ambiguity of the policy and that the indorsement was invalid the judge rather than just denying that motion leap forward on a number of issues that took the jury issues away primarily it was the health insurance company's obligation to prove the change was valid clear and convincing evidence under arkansas law they were relieved of those birds but the judge's ruling the judge went forward and said that that he she just assumed the notice was valid there were certain factual issues about that number one the defendant was relieved of putting on any information  at the time of the loss as i understand it well it issued the i mean let me just because i understand the issue is at some point between the initial contract and the one that's in existence at the time of the last yes the the insurance company modifies the contract to clarify what they did they don't say it's a change he's called a car yes so what did they do or not do so that that clarification wasn't valid what's what's the issue on that qualification that you claim makes it invalid it's as i started to say just as an extra question because we were prevented from challenging the notice we were prevented from challenging whether the notice was sent there there was a discrepancy in the notices two of them more sense strangely enough one was december one of thirteen and it did not have any notice of the amount that would be change and the second one was  now does that mean that the first notice came back and they had sent out another one and that the other one was late and too late for the statute we don't know that because those issues were taken completely away from us say we still believe that the case is a slaughter case and state farm cases are valid but we have to admit that the statute that controls this case was a two thousand and three statu and so those cases although they state correct contract law they are not exactly on point in this case that counsel do you agree this was not a cancellation situation this was a renewal situation to the as i said the am hour quires that the person who is charged with alleging an alteration unilateral authorization of a contract has the burden of proving that clear and convincing evidence we were far jury question on the notice issue the court also ruled in chambers before trial it was it was heavily argued and you probably saw that it was heavily argue that our client who is a janitor by the way had been asked without any explanation at deposition you know he knew this was an a c v policy all along he said yes in two questions we we told the judge we wanted him to explain that because he would have said i thought that meant dollar for dollar and she would not let him do that and i understand how understand that that would have created a credibility issue and should not have created an issue where moved for summary judgment i think it would have made a difference but they did not do that the judge went when you know said no to us and then went all the way to the finish line basically with them so  the second portion i haven't got much time on this but the second portion is two of the argument is to valuation now now after and yet that's ok yes or no you didn't make a real offer of proof on this did you counsel e could where he could try to get to this issue but the judge before that had made it very clear that she expected previous experience in terms of jobs or more something in the nature of very little farther we could go with it yard be honest look at what the point here being that this gentleman had built the house with his own he lived there twenty years yes yes yes built the house with his own right and it anybody you know that it's just too down there in your right hand you could take the by the right here and right here look at me i'm sorry your right hand right there you can take it down if you want to do you don't have to i'm five have you wanted to consider how we can for sure are more before the renewal date which is in compliance with the proper arkansas statute and copies of those policies in renewal packages including the letters that were so those were actually sort of may part of the policy the renewal policy that was sent to mr hatcher in for the policy years actual cash value indorsement because the policy had an actual cash value indorsement on it from twenty eleven through twenty fifteen and it was renewed each year  the explanation for why it was not listed on the declarations pages for the twenty eleven twenty twelve and twenty thirteen years is contained in the affidavit of james todd who is the president in doubt insurance company and he said he explained that prior to twenty fourteen the section of the declarations page four indorsements was entitled additional indorsement attached to popsie at that time well for for as long as a life of this policy and a c v indorsement has been a mandatory indorsement for th insurance company in the state bar because it was mandatory and not optional it was not listed on decorations pages in twenty eleven twenty twelve and twenty thirteen although it was that part of the declarations page was changed to same forms attached to this policy and from that time forward including for the time of  them both optional and mandatory indorsements were listed on their ration page so there really wasn't a change in the policy and the format of the decorations change and that's it just says an after her renewal is to be sent thirty days prior to expiration the statute twenty three eighty eight one of five and the offers to be in writing is to give the amount premium and a description that any change in a policy provision that's the language and when you look at that language there wasn't ever any change in policy provision in these policies there was only a change in the format that's reason as to how big a change it's got to be and what kind of change you say there's no law on that part you say there is no long how big a change it has to be no thank you not not to my knowledge now before your time's up surely a homeowner in arkansas especially once lived there twenty years and built a home homeowner testifies the value of it and the depreciation of it right the value of  value and insurance policy such as this has a specific definition and depreciation is sort of a term of art that depends asking that question what happened was he was so so i mean this really boils down to didn't ask question the right way if they if you were to just said how much do you think the rough as how much you think that your house was worth he could have testified i think so and  but the james river case said this land owner was even though he own the property was not qualified to testify under federal rule seven zero one because it was more than a simple application mathematics to come up with a figure for depreciation because depreciation is complicated different materials depreciated different rates depending on whether they're exposed to that element and that was a commercial building that he didn't build and didn't live in right that's correct that's correct but nevertheless that is the only authority out there in the