that's a record but there was a we did make the appointment of the nomination of an appraiser but i leave the committee so for all we know the argument that you are presenting will turn out to be completely irrelevant approval over if it hasn't answered the central question why i think one of the questions was my job to tell you what you're obviously not prepared for this i do i find it difficult to believe that a lawyer would not be prepared for this perfectly obvious question energy on and i'm not sure that i think there's been a final decision in the trial court regardless of the outcome of this when the final decision in the trial court on the theory of greentree financial yes  case would not be moot if the appraiser said there is a matching siting in the market so the premise of the district court's decision turns out to be wrong well my understanding based upon the record is that there covered ok so well so what i don't understand is why the phrase damage to property here yes what does the policy provide the whole strip is replaced or just the two inches in the middle the policy provides for the repair or replacement of right physical  understand that and in my quote with article two inches in the middle of a twenty foot strip of vinyl siding has been destroyed by what does the policy provide does it provide the two inches will be replaced i think the twenty british said a half a dozen times on appeal there is no damage to the north in east elevation the policy covers direct physical damage so regardless of how one comes out on the hypotheticals about damage to part of society or damage to the whole site there was a building there is no damage to the north and east elevations here and there is no obligation therefore to pay to repair or replace those to raise your voice our understanding is that the appraisal found that there was no matching materials but we will submit a supplemental please do a supplemental print are our interpretation of the policy captures the hypothetical the one hundred ten buildings use is damaged and you cannot repair it so that it matches the other one hundred nine well urged is the insurance company required to replace all of the siding on all one hundred ten buildings our position would be that if there's a loss in value depending on how the property is defined in the policy here explore all the buildings but there's a loss in value to the property as a whole we would argue that yes i'm not sure on that hypothetical of one building is damaged th entire property as a whole the value if you do either one or are one hundred ten buildings the property as a whole rather than each building well the that's part of the problem here in the district court thought that each building is property of each building has been damaged and each building houses four sides well actually space but right no one's worried about the roof it seems why is each building the right unit rather than standards why would you be entitled and then you find somebody to come in and say really the whole complex is less attractive because we've lost the aesthetic integrity and so there's damage to the whole property and the only way to restore this is to replace all of the siding all one hundred ten buildings well and that would be a question of what the law would be a question of fact of among experts about whether there's a lost value i suppose there is ok a loss in value of a thousand dollars to the house because of it because of the difficulty in matching the statics of the rest of the earth do you spend is the insurance company required to spend the money needed to replace one building they would have the option of just paying for you know if there's a loss in value you have that option but if we're looking at strictly in this particular case if there were just looking at replacement that would be our position again based on and your briefs take the position that the enactment of legislation in other states but not in illinois helps you know how do you i don't follow that logic well i think what's happening that's correct but there's no evidence in the record that they actually considered and rejected it so our view is that when you add to the ten states going and that and then you add the case law which are all trending in that direction our position is took place sometime two thousand and eighteen a second factor that had to occur here is really the sighting mean you fractured or to decide not to manufacture of an exact color of igs of an exact match is was already on the building a week that that's