all of their offices are the same building it's a situation where you have mosquito mutual as well and if i don't know about their entire process apparently was going wonderfully there was minor interaction regarding human on the amount the third mouth or the structure was resolved three hundred fifty thousand there was another approximately twenty thousand paid out personal property and that's a row figure it maybe give or take as of dollars and the insurer and the adjuster  i believe he did have the choice he could take the actual care valued at that moment and then later with him that a certain amount of time he lacked to replace the furniture and give the replacement value but they discussions with ashley furniture the insurance company representative had complete control and complete discretion there and when he found out from ashley firm voice that they had not received any chance so what he did hurt me what he didn't do was in cola the insurance say hey there's a discrepancy here you want to come and talk about this and figure it out you know beca did not show up or return when you showed the money back because not just the bedroom money all three seven well my recollection his in the letter from care of the game they said they wanted i may have to provide that  possible how it is contemplated that an insurance company with its exclusive knowledge in a setting where they're dealing with some guy off the street no insurance they've got  money and they've got a fifty or so page policy when you add up all the endorsements and everything else in assuming that way the insurance company lawyer in some examination in a row and here is the same guy who doesn't have a clue about the workings of or the technical mechanics of truth as he is in there and it was never an issue in the case it is not part of the issue before this court the insurance company denying the balance of her claim after finding the attentional misrepresentation defense is based up but the original language would say the entire policy is boil if there's misrepresentation a policy like this horse policy has full property insurance coverage and liability insurance that thought because although i'm going far away from this case your question prompts me to say that insurance companies who pay property insurance claim have a right subrogate and can sue the person respon if that is a fully correct it is about whether there is any issue of material fact that's correct while in this case what we have to remember is that the records show that mr as a businessman in his own rar learns from mr cocaine that the policy provides that he can either first make a claim for the depreciated value of the personal property process here he understood what the rules were journal cocaine did not give him decent structures as claims adjustor he could not give these instructions in order to attract he gave advocate on one hand no claims adjustor of the other what difference is that ileum misrepresentations were made money was paid on the basis of those misrepresentations it doesn't matter what  you're wearing the result going to be the same that's all i have a good question or th they are the only focus that we have here or in the first company is this insurer why to us only thing that counts that make any difference what the attorney for the insurance company did what the agent adjuster whatever you want to call him did the only thing that counts is this insurer why well you can be characterized in a lot of different worry that the only way that the insured could get money from the insurance company is if he had actually paid to replace something correct the only other way would have been for him he say look at what we have the actual cash value  voice later and give the additional the difference between here and there but so were there other items that he had already replaced paid for and then got reimbursed is this the only item that he had not actually repaid for