genuine issue serial fact in her summary judgment motion however slim the evidence is invalidating the equities here and i will be making this doctor does have considerable hurdles to get over and i will be making equity is who just suffered a catastrophic loss didn't have the money to hire an attorney had handled this case on her own for much of it and did not know the legal process or that are the things that she could this this case in summary judgment can be distinguished from other summary judgment cases because there is a g d of good faith here this is an insurer against insurers who has just suffered a catastrophic loss an indigent plaintiff in addition muster some sort of yes it would be a moat your honor and crocodile it would be a large no i don't see how she could swim across it would be a large her claims were denied which there may have been a language problem there may have been a communication problem i don't understand what exactly took place but she was obviously not clear that her claim had been denied she was expecting during that period of time and i believe that if there were further findings  the district level that she would be able to testify about this confusion why she was seemingly under the impression the prevention will still processing her claim which is what i believe her testimony would show and i believe that the  existing facts that are not in dispute point to these facts that are in dispute in there are so narrow that further testimony could be taken to resolve the dispute and it would not be contrary to the efficiency of the justice system  limitations for any reformation arguments or any negligence arguments on behalf of the ages the only time that that argument came up was well after the claim had been denied in a of one nine hundred ninety four as is indicated by this is blocked or self and well after well i can tell your honor it's not a form the credential prepared and the interesting thing about the form is the form is dated november first of one thousand nine hundred three her applications for coverage with prudential were on november fifteenth of nine hundred ninety  would you be asking an insurance company to add a group quite coverage to your policies two weeks before you have applied for a couple who have no pervert events that she had no or if she had no earthquake coverage with with that coverage in january of one nine hundred ninety four as a set forth in the supplemental excerpts of record on pages fourteen through seventeen professional sent her three letters those letters indicated that there was no earthquake coverage in any of the four thirty two am so here just to get the timeline straight her testimony was that in ninety three so she had the policies in ninety two and ninety three the agent informed her that she had a credit i mean accounts and told her apply it to earthquake coverage and then she says as fact or say she danced return to an earthquake coverage election form provided to her by credentials so that that's the timeline then she got a letter in january fourth eighty four with the form letters saying that she didn't is not a critique how do you how is it that is in the record because it was presented to us during the course of discovery your honor from the from this is part of herself i can indicate to you that after this case was opposing the motion for summary judgment and so this was one of the documents that you referred to in opposing the motion for summary judgment is historic sort of the something supporting her affidavit that is correct however the district court reviewed this document yes what we do with that i think what you do with that fact is you basically indicate that what she is saying opposing the motion for summary judgment is that the contract needs to be reformed however that's time metrically opposed to the issues that she's that she's framed in her complaint and the complaint she's indicated that this case is based upon her insurance policy insurance policy that was issued by credential does not contain coverage for the california legislature has indicated that they really don't want the issue of earthquake coverage to be something that's up in the air they basically want insurance to pay premiums for they want to make sure that the insurers have requested the coverage and they want to make sure that premiums are to provide that i understand what you're saying your honor however i would say that's kind of a claim revived in the california no it's not because three forty point nine indicates that the only types of causes of action required are causes of action on the contract meaning do the question because i'm going to i'm trying to make sure that i don't misunderstand the question your honor i apologize place just tell me yes or no you get your spend your money in with an application there i back and they said they say you got a binder you know you are you you have coverage in the fact i only heard the factual circumstances that you were supplying me with based upon the fact that the application was filled out the money was paid and the agent excerpts and record of pages fourteen through seventy so here you don't have the insurance company telling her yes and all times we knew that you were found for earthquake coverage quite the contrary you have the insurance company indicating you don't have earthquake balance in the equities of live there are a lot of facts that we can be determined with further fact finding and even as you raise another alternative theory that could be proven by facts that have still yet to be found in fact this defendant also has a duty to investigate and if being one of their agents that sold this policy they initial fact could be that they may be able to locate have some control over and understood that there are multiple people living she has a large family and i don't know if that would raise a legal defense fund and for whatever reason i think there could be a legal explanation or an explanation why she didn't see the receive it or of no one told me that my erection was denied or rejection or rejected but it doesn't sound like anyone affirmatively told her yes you're covered is there something in the record that supports that i don't believe it's in the record your but i believe if her testimony were allowed to be heard that she would testify to the agent representing that i faced upon the credit that was present in the prudential and their representation is in the years in between the actual earthquake and the eventual lawsuit she filed