your claims practices section of the code as a basis to allege that the insurer is not complying with the law or handling the claims fairly and the language in that case i think is is indicative of what's what's here is at obviously it's not dispositive the unfair claims practices but it's something that can be looked at to evaluate whether or not  of coverage under under twelve secondly they altered his list that he spent hours and worked on with agents of the insurance company you know they went as far as to at one point in time claim that mr cayman did not come up with actual values when he worked hand in hand with the insurer and coming up with the values for the property understanding is that that we didn't allege it i mean by judge land and it was simply we didn't make the allegations for a section one hundred and fifty five and that my understanding again was that we could not utilize section one  the the overall how would i say this claims handling and my client put forward in that letter that here are my problems you guys are opening up this avenue of coverage so i mean i so what was your understanding of the basis of trial judge dismissal we don't allege it we didn't plain and simple we didn't have the l e geisha ins to substantiate  and fifteen of the code a civil procedure because of the fail to allege sufficient facts and that's simply a deficiency that can't be cured by reference to trial testimony we have to the motion took the complaint as alleged not with all these other things that may have  fifty five even were he given an opportunity to do stuff the supreme court in golden rule versus schwartz stated that the rule that if there is a bona fide dispute as the coverage section one hundred and fifty five sanctions are simply inappropriate and in this case the evidence is clear that at a bare minimum there is a bona fide dispute over plaintiff's right to recover under the policy that now this brings me to my nd issue that the trial court committed error when it denied afforded to the trial court's decision on that issue is warranted when all the evidence when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent so overwhelmingly favors the move on that no contrary ver based on that evidence could ever stand a new trial on the other hand it in these two are issues kind of go hand in hand the new trial should be ordered with a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident where the findings of the provision that provides that the policy itself does not provide coverage if the any insurer and that's plaintiff or his wife because she was listed as a new sort of the policy one intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance to engage in fraudulent conduct or three made false statements related to this insurance for the record in this case could not be more clear the plate of breached these provisions not once but many times and play he met with tom woolley from country to country casualty and mr willie told the plaintiff quote if you use the barn in your business the barn is not going to be covered that's found the report of proceedings at page two  plate of also a bit of that same exchange that mr willie told him that any of his work tools or work quitman supplies would be subject to an internal policy them a taste of two thousand five hundred dollars  three hundred fifty dollars seventy cents the problem with this is that we know without question that the barn that the state of the barn wasn't used in the fire its use it wasn't used in his business is a false statement misrepresentation the pla course what was the twenty one thousand dollars check that was sure or did that represent that was the the call the value of the bar so the value of the barn was well in excess of the twenty one thousand so there was no need to determine a replacement cost and then depreciate it so there's a special line of coverage for what's called of silly reprivatize structures and other words things other than the primary residence that are not connected to the home like a detached garage  business in other words country believed it i did he made a claim you made a representation country supplied we believe you and and issued the check but we know that that statement wasn't true  do they deduct it on his taxes a business expense they st tried to justify that or explain it by stating that you know my wife did this and i didn't know anything about it but mr came later admitted after you separated from his wife christine but he continued to deduct the barn and the utilities to the barn the standard is high but this case you know if we simply said well the jury decided it and therefore that's it there's no remedy beyond that if if this court or the trial court found that based on the is completely overwhelmingly to the contrary that there is no question in fact judge holland ultimately found in his post trial order he said there's no question that because he remitted the value of the bar that twenty one thousand three hundred and fifty mrs cayman who is a new sort of the policy did admit that the building a barn was used in the business and as a result judge holland a firm of he stated that as a matter of law the built the barn was used in the business so now we have an irreconcilable position mr came into said it's not used to my business and the court has said that's not true it was used in your business and i know that as a matter of law and our courts have consistently held that you know a the statements of if the barn were not used if the bar were used in his business he wouldn't get paid for it he wouldn't get the twenty one thousand dollars he also knew that the barman used his business he wouldn't get the one thousand dollars a country paid for demolition so mr came in new and it's undisputed that he knew because he admitted it that if he told the truth the bar was used in his business it was going to cost him thirty thousand dollars because it wouldn't be covered now that's n so you're not paying that money right so if they did the insurance policy isn't that asked for everything you want and we just don't pay you well on the lies we catch you on the whole premise behind it is that if you make i would agree your honor however i mean they heard the evidence they heard the testimony of of mr came in miss came and of the agents of the insurance company and even judge judge  says this is not a finding by the court the plaintiff intentionally misrepresented as he was using the property or business based on his understanding of the policy but rather is based on the court's interpretation of the policy language in plaintiff's admissions a trial my client never made misrepresenting my client believed if the virus was being used in business an example of that would be if he was an auto repair man and he repaired automobiles in his art and he represented that he wasn't doing that in the barn then there would be a reason for the covers not to fly his understanding is st and foremost he stored business property in the bar and they specifically cover property  business property that was stored in the barn as well i'm so it's kind of a catch twenty two there with the language of the policy and this was at trial it was greatly discussed through testimony by the parties by the agents of the insurance company of what you know what does it mean used in the us and use in the business my client the jury found at him and miss came in they didn't intention misrepresent any of those facts with regard to use the bar then also the d for covered under the dwelling my client was remodeling his home and the trial court affirm the award  twenty seven thousand three hundred and fifty five dollars  and some of it was actually in the barn as well at the time a loss distress or pressure to make misrepresentations or increase the claim mr came into firmly said no i've always been current we know that for a fact is false the in fact his mortgage mortgages filed suit to foreclose on the mortgage representations to country that i had no financial issues in fact the the following exchange occurred at trial it with regard to this question quote so is a fair to say that then that in the statements you provided to coventry connection with your claim you provide a country with false information about your financial wherewithal that's his answer quote yes it was he admitted he flat out admitted during the trial that he material to country from sure to know about an insured financial status because it gives the potential motive to inflate their claims to lie about the claim just like mr came and did the barn which would have cost them thirty thousand dollars that he told the truth so it's material that's unchallenged so we have an uncontroverted admitted statement that yes mr cayman lied about his financial status that that statement was material to qantas investigation and that it wasn't true although doesn't that go really because in this case it gave him a motive to misrepresent that he used the bar in his business to give him a motive to see he was only a painter not a handyman and all these other tools were just as personal items so they're they're not limited to the two thousand five hundred dollars he gave motivation to misrepresent that all the things in the barber of his not his which turned out to be not true because they were blocked his brother to friends he made a slew of misrepresentations and the point is by inflating his claim and inflating the value of the items by inflating the number of items or how much they were worth of their their actual cash value all of those things are things that the insurance company is concerned about and wants to know hey do you have any financial reason or motive to misrepresent things to us yes or no ok so if that's found to be true that issues with regard to the barn being used in the business or the for the misrepresentations regarding the financial condition if he just ignores them in his post or order the motion for jail or be a new trial specifically just like the case here is based on the general those two giant it mid misrepresentations that he is misrepresented use of the part of the business misrepresent his financial condition just how did nor those two things instead engage in a discussion about there was no misrepresentation regard to the value of the items claims that wasn't what was presented to the court though in the motion but curiously he does just tell does go back and say well i do know he  made a misrepresentation about the barn because we know as a matter of law the barn was used in this business so it's clear that just how it is trying to be solved and lichens kind of split the baby here at end of it he  court not to avoid that issue look at it in particular those two other about it i'm contested overwhelming piece of evidence that he that mr cain made misrepresentations and it's work and that gen warranted or at the very least a new trial is warranted the point of all this is to correct the jury's mistakes again i see that my time has expired has no further questions i'm done a