moment's state form and these items were both were all appraised submitted for coverage under a personal articles policy they were all cover pieces of of glory and they were stolen the plaintiffs then contacted the police immediately but they didn't seize all the policies in this case requires that you contact the insurance company at the same time that you call the police if the they don't say at the same time the policies do provide you the policies provide that the insured are to contact the insurance companies as soon as reasonably possible after  n my clientele put forth evidence and explained given an excuse as to why they believed it was not lost in till the police detective had told them that the case was as they put a closed door with mark inactive they were no longer actively searching it is you know clear that there was a fire a clear that the car was damaged this was personal property that had very much sentimental value to to to my clients and perhaps you know in contact the insurance company and they didn't want to believe that it was necessarily lost until the police said we can't find it we're not going to file it to pope use the word necessarily on this record as i understand it there was certainly the possibility that the watch was with us so i correct absolutely there was there was a possibility and haven't we said that with respect to what triggers a acted so there was the possibility of a loss the items were certainly not in their possession and they had not yet been recovered i'm not sure i'm understanding your argument as to why they're right they could delayed notification that the insurance company would be happy to find out that they'd been recovered if that was the end result but that they were entitled to know that there was a loss under the policy promptly and  i guess to the other point of even more for the moment that there was an obligation to work another point is that the eighty six days or the number of days that were taken was not unreasonable as i'm sure these items because if there was a lawsuit wanted to be able to go to the insurance company it suffered a loss and maybe the loss was not going to be permanent but you knew in the back of your head if it wasn't for your client if you correctly recognized the case law establishes an objective test as to when the notice provision is triggered and it's basically if the circumstance is known to the inch whether this circumstance is known to the insurer of the time i would suggest to a reasonable person the possibility of a coin and understood circumstances in this case were on disputed they specifically took up to policies of insurance to provide coverage for their apartment and items of jury the policy was the policies were in effect they were aware that a lawsuit occurred on january first of two thousand and fourteen they were aware that the jewelry had been stolen so when we get into this issue about they weren't sure that it was lost it was definitely no longer in the apartment or in their possession at that time they notify the police but then they did not give any notice and they admit this until march twenty eighth some eighty six days later and their only reason that they've ever given is well they thought that the police might find it so they didn't consider that it was a covered loss that's not the criteria it's not the standard the district court apply the proper standard and it's decision should be affirmed as a matter of law if there are no other questions thank you made as to whether say farms should have noticed because of something that the place may or may not have done there any material difference absolutely not clearly that's the obligation the insured to notify the carriers of any claim that might possibly of the insured and as as a nonmoving party appellant were entitled to have those any any facts katrina light most favorable to them in france is taken from those facts stand it well known i don't need to repeat it but that that's not what occurred yes there was a period of time where we could look at eighty six days from the date of the theft however if you look at it being as one day or two days after my client learned from the police that that they were going to find it their reason which they were putting before the court of the lower court they did not they had their reasons they gave their reasons for that and they shouldn't be borne from recovering on property that the insured simply because they didn't make a phone