case and prevent a later judgment that might be much prior from coming into play because if case they paid the settlement amount and gets and there between the insured and the ensure so how how can that move the case because the two thousand and twenty cities so well it is different from point city but it's different for different as a practical matter why does it make a difference because ultimately the the notice prejudice rule that california follows is part of its common law and georgia law says that we don't follow other states common law we follow our own common law so ultimately why does it make a difference it seems like regardless of whether georgia law for california in the choice of law in the end it would have been under georgia law regardless since we're not talking about statutory law here well it i don't think there's you know the  argument wasn't raised until your reply brief and front of us and nd even if you didn't waive that argument the georgia courts have applied it to florida have applied the rule to florida and florida was neither one of the original thirteen colonies nor carved on one of the original thirteen colonies so it seems like that would that argument wouldn't succeed anyway did you want to address the i'm not aware of the case applying  one and nd of all well actually really that's the nd point the st point is is that why didn't you wave the argument fine i mean did you raise it before the reply brief in front of us and maybe i just missed that even would you agree that if there is a case where the georgia supreme court applies a presumption of identity wrong to a state that was neither one of the original thirteen colonies nor a stay created someone all insurance policies issued in the state the notice prejudice rules should be applied would be applied by the supreme court of georgia in this case because georgia has no particular interest in the california insurance company between two citizens of other states involving property that happens to be address a couple of points clarify a couple points that were made by mr same color as far as the twin city case is concerned if course is distinguished of all because in that case the insurance company paid the claim without having an agreement with the insured to work out whether or not they would be reimbursement in this case partial reimbursement depending on the outcome of the coverage case  and i wanted to clarify that even in the twin city case the court did not dismiss for lack of jurisdiction what it said is that the declaration for al location would be moot because the claim had been resolved unilaterally by the insurance company however it did allow decline for recoupment to go forward and the just reading from the case  quote any alterations and we have a lot of controversy here because depending on how we rule we're going we're going to determine who loses two hundred and seventy five thousand dollars are correct correct as far apply the law where the contract was made unless it was to be performed a different state what we have here is the policy was issued to california entities but their sole assets are the georgia property in this case one hundred and sixty one unit condo building with retail space on the st floor that's all owned and operated by renaissance retail and a one hundred and forty v units by renaissance residential saying that the performances where the claims are made i mean claims are paid citing to st party cases but here the claim was made in georgia because it was to the the plaintiff in the underlying case so i think even under the lex loci contract this case i mean rule we still have it's performed entirely in georgia that is there's nothing to do with california other than that that's where the owners of the property happened to notice prejudice rule itself is not explicitly stated in california's insurance code i think that itself dispenses of the question of whether or not even if california law applied whether  if the insurer omits to make objection which here there was objection right away as soon as the insurer found out that the insureds principal had been to locations the day after it occurred to do an mention the application of that rule however i'd like to make a few comments on that but i think that once we get through the question of jurisdiction and choice of law i don't think there's any question but that there was an unreasonable and unexplainable delight here under the georgia cases the incident happened in september two thousand and thirteen when the insureds own property manager was california to atlanta the very next day why because he was concerned about a potential claim he spoke to witnesses he viewed the scene he got a police report he collected video here on loaded computer data and then he spoke to his worker's comp agent who advised that well it's it's your sub contractors employees so therefore you don't need to be concerned about workers compensation and clearly he knew about the possibility if not the likelihood of the claim the attack was the appellant keep saying was adjacent property it was not it was the same address the attack was in the stairwell of the parking deck to the building and again the building given to nationwide of course the burden is on the insured to show compliance with conditions and the trigger is when there's an occurrence which may result in a claim depending on the severity of the injury as well as whether  the case law and here again the appellant clearly knew a claim could arise and the decision not to notify was based on their investigation of the incident and conclusion that they would not be liable for for the unfortunate right there are cases that say assessment of liability is very clear is for the insurance company the purpose of the notice is to let the insurance company do the investigation make a decision about foreseeable but that's not supported by the case law in the airport and many more case the property manager knew that the tenants had been accused of selling counterfeit products they were on notice of that but didn't believe that they would be liable and the court said that was not a reason for the delay in the brit underwriters case the insured collected rent and leased out our studios where the injury occurred and it was a serious injury there was a  paralysis when someone fell from a horse they didn't think they would be liable again the court said that's not a reasonable the and i case is pretty close to this one in that case the insurer was a general contractor and the sub contractors employee was injured on the job similar to the facts in this case the insured spoke to their agent who said well if the sub contractor has worker's comp coverage you don't need to worry about it and the court sa ga excuse me j and j foundation case where the insurer knew there was an accident near their construction site but it was no indication that the insurance contractors were involved so there's no reason to think  there might be a claim against us the newbery case that the appellant's rely on a lot there was a fight at work party over one hundred miles from the individuals home he did not notify his homeowners carrier in the court said it was reasonable to believe that his that to not know that his homeowner's policy would cover it and then there's the brock case where there was a school bus accident within  school district and superintendent for the entire district was not involved in the accident and they said it was not it was excusable that he's not foresee that he would be personally served i'm personally sued for that accident  investigation and he concluded that for whatever reason that he did not need to notify any insurance companies and so he didn't and i don't think that that is a reasonable excuse under any stretch of the application of the georgia cases so unless the court has any questions i think that covers the the points i want to make ok mr severne i don't hear any  probably correct and and even so that the payment and then the property itself the only insured will property is also in georgia correct well right about that were a matter of happenstance the policy itself provided nationwide