i'm going i'm here on behalf of allstate insurance company and like to reserve three minutes for about no credit thank you this is a or should have been a fairly conventional breach of contract action the consequence of that is that the jury was authorized to award coverage even if it didn't exist because based solely upon what she thought she should have gotten with the jury was asked and instructed accordingly by her instructor who were to examine the claim per the language of insurance policy right yes they had an opportunity to make a determination as to whether or not the claim made square with the coverage that was offered so there was not at the outset an effort by the plaintiff to somehow obscure matters by making this it was somehow misleading or that she was the seat she did not allege that it had been altered or changed in the five years that she under the policy she didn't alleging or complaint that there was any of them to give any or that she was confused or if there was any part of it that was fake so it was purely i am entitled to coverage because my loss is covered by the policy in all states than i was based on their belief that there was  type of a lack of maintenance and so it was just purely a breach of contract action there were no allegations no one other that but i would call prerequisites to get to and ensure talking about well i thought i had this or i should get this and that was absent in any of the pleadings it was not part of any of the disclosures by the parties there was no discovery on the issue of what the insurance because there was only a single question posed to the jury as to whether or not there's coverage under the policy if the jury found that there was not coverage under the policy itself that the exclusions applied but they believed mrs gordon had asked for something else or wanted something else or expected something else the only way they could work her coverage and the only way they could consider her expectations was to try and answer the first question yes so that was a series of questions that were asked that the jury was posed where they could say we believe the case cleared by the actual expectations the case itself there was a really one question pretty the jury that's correct ok on th in the context of harmless error how your client would have been harmed beyond what the jury had an opportunity to do in making a determination as to what coverage was  contrary to your client's wishes but it does not speak to how this would have been prejudicial in any way and my contention is that if the jury reviewed the policy and found that the event was to go beyond the language of the policy toward coverage to her based on her expectations so and the way to do that was by entering the only question that was posed to them by saying yes i think it's all that may be possible but if we come at it from the other side isn't there and we substantial evidence in the record from which the jury could have reasonably found that windstorm was in fact the cause of the damage to  if there was evidence that it was a windstorm the jury could have concluded that it was a not evidence to support the contention that it was we as the us but there was a there was not there was not factual evidence that it was a theory that was advanced but not supported by facts well that's came down to whether or not it was a it was wind that caused the collapse or whether it was a lack of maintenance and there were two experts though off one by the plaintiff one by the defend the plainest expert said that he believed there was a but that had been going on for perhaps a decade so the jury was presented with two versions the jury was presented with a version by the plaintiff that it was eight there were trees and fall cycles that have been going on  storm was more responsible for this damage than the freestar didn't he said when was a factor he said i would attribute this more to a wind event and just due to the damage that occurred yesterday paso backs off of that later and he says but that wasn't the jury entitled to did it wasn't there sufficient evidence there for them to find i don't think there are facts to support that it's a firy that he offers but there isn't they didn't present evidence the question becomes there's several issues that need to be addressed and the first issue that we should talk about is whether it was appropriate for the jury to share reasonable expectation interpretation has big it's got to be a sudden accidental windstorm causing a loss and that's not what the policy said so yeah well in terms of the reasonable expectations she's going to testify about what it is first not that what it is that she thought she was by pennsylvania law says she has a right to expect something in return for her money the third circuit cases this is this is a matter of your state law  or maybe in some instances in pure state law i would sleds the assume that pennsylvania is not a model of clarity on when reasonable expectations should be injected into a lawsuit this  your position ultimately that right or wrong there was no prejudice here and if that's the case is it the safest thing for this court as a federal court is hear was not what we had discussed that her testimony had actually we had intended to go further with her testimony in terms of the discussion with the agent and what she thought she was buying and what policy would have been a hundred year old house we never got there i tried several times to circle back and bring that testimony out and we were going to follow that testimony up with war from jack quickly who was you know just there who would have explained the differences  expect allstate to cover me for this lost it's a catastrophic loss and contrary to our state's position mr rosen testified that it was catastrophic was sudden accidental no one argues whether or not the collapse of the wall was sudden it came down or it wants she didn't do anything it's accidental does she have a reasonable expectation that given that explanation which was given to her by jack quickly he read the policy he said  collapse and that's and the jury question and that the jury question again folks stand on the language of the policy go back and look at the policy the policy say and make a determination based on the  policy and the a reasonable expectation was did not affect the jurors discussion good morning your honors may please the court my name is shown could patrick with penciling office an attorney general here on behalf of the pennsylvania housing finance agency and i'd like to begin by clarifying i believe a confusion in the twenty nine of the reproduced record the verdict that that was included in the appendix is not the actual verdict that given to the jury and i missed this quite frankly the first time but the language is different if you look at it it's also it was also the language that our state cites on page seven of the brief but if you look at the actual language that was answered by the jury on seven twenty four they were ask caused by a windstorm as covered under her policy with defendant or state property and casualty insurance they were specifically asked was this yes and we cite in our brief to document fifty six in the record below which is the actual document that was signed and filled out by the jury the reason that that is important is because as judge twenty's quickly points out the jury was given two theories of loss and they were este specifically did a windstorm knock this down so the question for purposes of sufficiency of the evidence is is there a minimum quantum of evidence to support that finding better when someone took this role down do you understand all state is putting forward a sufficiency the evidence question here in this appeal yes your hon r we we grief that i believe in perhaps maybe the confusion is that the standard of review for that question they cite to a twelve piece extended review instead of a rule fifty or fifty nine assertions of the evidence obviously a jury verdict has a lot more weight than a complaint the question becomes is there some basis for it and there was he said several times in the record in his supplemental report which was plaintiff's exhibit twenty four at one forty eight in the record he said quote the failure can be directly attributed to the storm on page correct yes sure and so their argument that you did not or that the place didn't prove that the predominant cause was the way the storm i thought right but that's a problem for you you wouldn't normally think of the interpretation of the testimony and goes to the weight to that the case that the rosen testified to that to a freeze thaw cycle but he also explained that that effects every single older home aside there is still the building contractor gerald i hope to test was the only one who actually climbed up on the roof to do emergency repair and look at the damage and he testified that theory that it was a lack of maintenance by at least three witnesses and we cite to this in a brief three witnesses testifying that there was no mold there was no water saying there was no deterioration that they can find that would have caused  at the end of the day to the question as to whether there is a minimum quantum of evidence to support the jury's very specific finding that a windstorm caused this well to come down which we all agree is covered by the policy we think the answer is yes in light of all look at the policy and in fact the jury when they went back to deliberate they asked for a copy of the policy they took that direction very seriously and again the fact that brought the jury back in he read from the transcript so i have to the verdict so that i have is different than what was read so i'm going to have to defer to what was in the transcript but the verdict should slip that i have our contention is that was there and it isn't heartless because it was is permissible for the jury to award coverage based on this is good and expectations even  and we would contend even if there was evidence that it was not covered by policy they could still word her coverage because she thought she was getting that kind of coverage we contend there for work because there is a very real possibility a reasonable possibility that that error makes a verdict it is harmless you can't just close the book on this and say we can walk away when that there isn't the real possibility you for your assistance will take the matter under advisement in