on liability so to speak but you prevailed on that face right so in light of that i'm going to have you go well we'll see each issue argued separately because i think it makes more sense to have ms casado open on the bad faith issue since she's seeking reversal on that one did you do you want to reserve any time for report a law on your issue i do  application for insurance made by eileen gibson on april twenty two two thousand and sixteen requesting bodily injury liability limits of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars last five hundred one thousand dollars and stack under insured motorists limits of one hundred thousand dollars last three hundred thousand dollars for each of the three vehicles to be insured under the policy constituted a valid request for a lower limits under insured motorists and i would like to separate that issue into two subparts for simplicity purposes and so far being the issue of whether a application for insurance can here your application said that the the reduction form was quote required so why doesn't that make your case more like free then than or snack ok district bia and it had a summary form which set forth that the different limits of coverage that were being asked for in each of the fifty one different jurisdictions and in the summary form itself it said that there are the insurer was told in that case is that if if of ania as its own set of forms you have to follow you have to have those forms and this and this summary for i would not be so efficient in those days with an asterisk which included then you'll be given limits required by operation of law and not in a default coverage in pennsylvania is equal image of under insured matters coverage i'm not sure i have a much i appreciate mr salzberg why it matters whether the application was for fifty states one study let's assume the facts were the same here and we're talking about only an application in one state pennsylvania but the exact same form was used as in friess namely it said something to the effect that this policy will not be effective unless and until a separate form signed wouldn't you lose under those facts even if it was just an application of one state if given the way freeze was decided your honor that if our application contained instructions or guidelines or it said anything to suggest to the insured that your application is not sufficient unless you completely as other forms of it said that that the application is insufficient must the plate be other forms then we'd have the free situation but there is nothing in the would you agree that the application can be part of the analysis of whether an ambiguity or do you think that's a limitation of that principle is mistaken about their rights on that just like your client might have been legally mistaken about the notion that he a separate document that was quote required according to your client say says that if the written request is clear that you're asking for a different limits of under insured waters coverage and bodily injury liability coverage and i say it's three times in the applicable might might put my point my point was more along the lines of you you sort of hit them with their understanding that they had ten thousand three hundred not twenty five thousand seven hundred and fifty and my point to you is i don't think their understanding necessarily changes the deal right just like if your client had an understanding that the form that was signed after the accident was quote required that doesn't mean that's the law the law might be that under three hundred limits and you you i encourage and to fifty in five hundred that's never going to nish you that's what they asked were they say because state farm had a separate form the issue in this case your honor as i see it is whether the the application is that better yes i can hear you now great good afternoon the gibson's position is that there is an ambiguity in initial application the st time it became aware that there was any coverage that they could have for what it appears that happened was that state farm had increased the bodily injury limits for the gibsons they make that had been discussed there was no discussion at that time about anything dealing with an increase limits of us knew i am because they didn't even know about that again until after the crash the problem is that after the crash they it's right on the form right like that that's a stream coverage you see that's the same coverage they have with the every policy when they walk into the state former agent so we can understand how that actually happened that  could've been equal to that but they thought that this was retroactive to the original application that's held this thing with the lawsuit came about with a request of the three hundred thousand dollars because increased limits that the fall was increased limits equal to the liability limits that's the failure here so that sounds like that sounds like a failure to disclose what you're saying is that the company didn't didn't saying seems to see pretty directly that the insurance policy the application is sort of the the clearest way to ascertain how much coverage somebody is buying and here your clients didn't buy they didn't pay a premium for seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars in under insured they paid a premium on three hundred thousand dollars on and under insured  were written it this was not a preprinted form in our case this was a preprinted form in our case that state form presented to them this was not something that the clients requested this was an evaluation of coverage given by the state farm agent to the client because they were getting new coverage in place of the erie policy and your said case the limits of coverage were actually handwritten then and that was one of the determining factors that your said court frats well that's not what the holding says the hold the holding says the insurance application in question here satisfy section seven hundred and thirty four is writing requirement as it clearly indicated appellants desire for reduced un peu i am coverage and was signed by need sure right but in this case even state form of best that the client didn't know anything about reduced coverage that's the issue under state law under pennsylvania law it doesn't require that that specific form it requires a writing yes ok and then why isn't we get back to why isn't the application the writing in in or sags the supreme court of pennsylvania says that the application was in writing that the application wants to finish it because they knew it was insufficient they had prepared a whole package of documents in order to comply with the statute they have teams of lawyers to do this that's one of the things they did several what they did what begin with they misled them by giving even getting her to sign that form at that time because they knew this came up after the collision but i don't see any i don't see the agent named as a defendant for fraud or or misrepresentation or anything like that where where did you sue the agent for fraud or misrepresentation we did and that's that's an issue for another day at bay but the problem here is that the agent the the difference in the apt in sections seven hundred and thirty one the notice requirement there and the language used by the legislature in said this right at the beginning when we got involved with this that moore said it was patentable but not but distinguishable because it's completely different than the facts in our case again your view that the practices of the various insurance companies change the law so if if company x just has an application and the insured applies for  company y will be held to a different legal obligation because it requires or offers this additional form beyond the application is that your position started to get her position i think the position it is similar missing about application that's one of the things that's missing here that would have been taken care of have the required form been presented to them and so i think that's the whole point is this why don't you just get in the form with the time  could could you start could you start mr al to pinney left off with what i just described is a very good question i mean it if you have the form and you say it's quote required is it not better  dea agent screwed up here then the question becomes what does that mean legally and i guess your position is well the agent screwed up at least as far as not following state farm's best business practices but you're saying it's of no legal moment because the form is surplusage it's just what you call redundancy  well it's more than that just your own you're out of we've litigated this issue about whether a application can be the requests or lower limits for years and years and years i was prepared for his argument i remembered a case i had a young versus by statute and the application is sufficient under the statute and i just want to clarify that the prior carrier of this it was not to erie it was actually geico and in the hundred said they knew that they could purchase people are missing had done it before and if you look at the and if you look at the application here your honor it's not something that stay far pre prepared there are three vehicles that are to be insured under this policy and dollars they purchase property damage coverage for the collision and comprehensive and they took the lowest adoptable one hundred dollars and for the rd vehicle which was a two thousand pound zero they apparently decided if the discussion with the asian it wasn't worth putting any kind of a record that even would have been available as premier if it weren't well but the policies are issued for a six month period you if you if you wanted to you could go back and say it was a policy premium forty thousand three hundred and what would it have been for two well it's it shows that when the facts are a little different like they are in that case you're going to have a decision that different than the previous days and but i have to say it as an officer of the chords a court the court also mentioned in their case that they were given the i think the section seven hundred and ninety one important notice with the application in the sense you know and you want to see if you all the coverage that are available for purchase so you know they can attempt to distinguish that case on that basis  but as i say i argued a case in for the supreme court a couple months ago and i got into a little bit with the justice bear and just a fair one of the few things we agree on was is that an sign this separate document that they would be provided with the coverage that required by operation of law state farm would have a problem with there's nothing in the application that suggested that nothing whatsoever if we look at  what we asked for a name in there and be an ambiguity there maybe that didn't happen as i could go back to what i said in the beginning everybody stay farm everybody understood that look at the application the application request for lower limits it's signed by the insured and it's clear that what they're asking for and that's the end of it that satisfy section seven hundred and thirty four dollars whether it's an application for insurance or upon new evidence that has come to light and also to prevent a manifest injustice to the gibsons the new evidence is the realization that there was a clear intent by stay far in the high the actual u i and limits from the gi counsel mr fear avanti acknowledged that he mistakenly accept that the declaration and also the representations by state farm and their counsel as to what the u i am limits w our office here and it was then discovered what actually happened the cons out of it how do you get around what the court said in count in i'm going to quote the court said a large jury verdict quote does not of itself lend substance to the charge of bad faith it is merely proof that the results of saturday's contest are more certainly stated on the following monday than they are predictable in the preceding friday when we have to follow that one of the basis for our appeal is not the size of the verdict it was only inserted there to cover their agents mistake and to limit their exposure and we think the evidence is not actually new evidence is just the significance of three right and that and then how does that how is that new evidence well it's new evidence because it just came to light afterwards and it didn't come to light only big was it was it was it not in the light was it in the dark because of something that the insurer oh was it just always there and not noticed it was the fact the trial council predecessor coun believed state farm and believed their attorneys and what they what they represented to them and in addition the new evidence is also the district court's molding of the verdict in the in the limits which the court or the courts have determined can amount to bad think state farm had an obligation to act in good faith and utmost fair dealing they didn't do that when they ten attempted or when they obtained mrs gibson signature after the collision when they knew at that point she had been involved in an accident she had broken bones was injured and they went to went to her obtained this signature on there for their own form and the only reason that was done was to limit their exposure and this was done in violation of their their duty to act in good faith for the the coverage of miles rather than to change the words well it's as you said limit their exposure what if they were just they were just confirming what they understood the coverage to be namely ten thousand three hundred well but the problem there is is that the limits weren't ten thousand three hundred because of all of the issues that were argued on the other on our coverage issue based upon the fact that at the time of the initial application required documents were not signed that same time they attempted to correct their agents mistake by going to her or obtaining a signature from her after an accident after they know she's injured and that just wasn't what they you know that's amounts to bad faith in addition to the meth misrepresentation all along from the initiat from the inception of the claim all through that the coverage is worth three hundred thousand so based upon the conduct of state farm the initial claim was that they failed to properly evaluate the u i and claim that coupled with this conduct that came to light after the verdict warrants say every consideration and more hints the ability of the gibsons to present their bad faith claim also it's important that to know that state farm when they filed their motion for summary judgment asked that the summary judgment on death a thief granted with prejudice but the lower court didn't do that they dismissed the bad bet they've claimed but that not dismissed it with prejudice and we're here of discretion standard that's a standard to use with a motion for reconsideration and when you look at what judge rice did he didn't have use discretion and this court should affirm the decision that he made when you use macs a seafood what you're looking at the case tells you to look at was there a manifest error of law has there been a new change in the law or is there some new evidence that would if it had been known to judge rice have changed everything so when you look at the legal side of things judge rice applied longstanding pennsylvania law on bad faith that law hasn't changed and he did not create a manifest error of law when he applied that law the motion for summary judgment done back in july of twenty one thousand focused on the arguments the gibsons were making at the time in terms of state farm's that he said the state farm committed bad faith because before suit was filed it didn't get a statement underoath and it didn't get a niamey independent medical examination and if it had done those things it would have made a higher offer than what it made that's what state farm was accused of state for and then filed a motion and put the whole record in front of judge rice and he looked at the record and decided that no reasonable jury seeing those facts could find its state farm's behavior was a reasonable summary judgment was granted what you won't find in the motion for summary judgment is any reference to any type of coverage issue any i was misled i was lied to someone hid this from me that's not in the motion for summary judgment it was not considered by judge reiss after the verdict the gibsons now say that's new evidence of bad faith but your honors go back and look at the initial complaint that the gibson spiled and they started this lawsuit exhibit e two the plaintiffs complaint is the very application that you heard mr saltzburg and mr outta p d argue about that document has been available to the gibsons from the get go then you come to the joint discovery plant in february of two thousand and nineteen and it was not hidden it was not some buried footnote for state farm e mail counsel for the gibson's about the joint discovery plan and one of the st things you have to tell the court is what is the coverage so it was drafted and a footnote was put in there length all the cards on the table application april twenty to two thousand and sixteen accident may five two thousand and sixteen signature on the request for lower under insured motorist coverage may twenty four two thousand and sixty it was all out there wasn't hidden there was no lie there was no misrepresentation if counsel for the gibsons did not agree with state farm's position or zag says the application alone is enough in a sufficient it could have been litigated there could have been written discovery on it there could have been oral discovery on it it could have been addressed in the motion for summary judgment but that didn't happen when the gibsons made their request to bring the bad faith case back judge rice looked at everything and judge rice concluded that all of the available coverage documents were available to the gibsons at all times there was no surprise there was no unfair behavior and as a result it w undoubtedly the fact that he found seven hundred and fifty thousand instead of three hundred thousand in a one hundred sure coverage that would make it less likely that he would use that face right because if if in fact they were entitled to hire under insured motors coverage then they got what they bargained for but but if it's the trial judge filed that would have been before judge rice this whole concept of it someone lied it's a win cheat that someone steal is someone trying to abuse the gibson i could've been something that was considered but that didn't happen because your honor just didn't have it be the application was signed on april twenty two two thousand and sixteen just as mr saltzburg said it was a specific written request by the insured for lower limits state farm understood to be three hundred thousand coverage and the gibsons understood it from the time the suit was filed that's what the lane alleged there was a motion in limine a filed by state farm or state farm said the jury should be told out of the coverage that yury should decide this case based upon the injuries and what is the case worth decided no the best way to try the case is for the jury to have no information on the amount of coverage and just decide on the injuries but i don't think anyone i would say even the gi imagined that the jury would award one million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars given the injuries as they were known to be if you're part of your question was would stay from his evaluated this case differently whether there's three hundred or coverage seven hundred and fifty coverage the answer is no state farm evaluated the case based upon the injuries and so based upon the injury state farm didn't believe the case was worth behind jury proves you wrong on that one yes you're right this is exactly what they sink out and you don't know what's going to happen on saturday until after saturday's happened and or i guess the judge judge rossi if any additional questions for any questions from his do