ok this case is about a covered loss it was reported in march th seen responded except it coverage made a very small payment of six hundred and seventy eight dollars for what it described as other  unaware that her property had been a that and allies when her rent payment didn't come true with the bank notified her and she went over there but she didn't have a key mr rich who was with her tenant kept all the keys didn't return any and she finally received a letter from them dated mid february saying that he had moved to try to find him if he tried to get in the house when she finally got in the house he was horrified to find all the damage there was doesn't that just point out why it's important to him in sharing different insurance when you're removing a property as opposed to as opposed to insurance when you're actually residing on the property well the policy is the homeowners policy it was renewed twice since this claim came up as a homeowners policy not a renters policy now and respond in sales agent had said that he would have renewed it or he would have converted it to a rental policy but he didn't do that and he's had to opportunity same thing now the policy itself as a clause that provides coverage for last rental value if the house becomes uninhabitable for some reason so this homeowner's policy does extend coverage rental value any our position is that any reasonable person looking at the policy would see there's coverage for loss rental value that means you can rent all or part of our house maybe p true to the policy isn't all risk all at sea as we are you know that means that all risks are covered unless there's a specific exclusion under an all risk policy the default position is coverage there has to be a specific exclusion that bars coverage and i asked did you let their language in the policy that referenced residency on the premises  policy definitions define residence premises but it does not make clear that if you move out and converted to a rental you lose coverage and in fact that you came before this very court in the howard tate where the court refused to allow an insurance company to deny coverage when the house was converted to or around in that case was cited by the farmers versus truck in the court of appeals of the state of oregon with approval and the farmers rishta truck in that case held that when an insurance company wants to deny coverage based on the definitions it has a duty to make it the truculent case in the brief and i this came up in the context of my ambiguity argument pages seventeen to nineteen and my response to the summary judgment motion or i argued that policies that as a definition this seems to like limit what covered and has a lot rental value for them in a court much interpret the policy in the way most favorable to the insured which means that all reasonable inference in all interpretations should be given with an eye towards giving the insurance policy benefits to the policy holder and in order to avoid corporate and i cited the o'neill case and i took a quotation from the o'neill case some page nineteen and my opposition to the summary judgment motion in the courts must interpret these insurance policies in such a way as to avoid or picture the truck in its case held that it was directly on point although the defense tries to distinguish the farmers versus triteness case the important takeaway from that case is that an imp insurance company wants to limit the coverage it's extending it had the duty to tell the insured exactly what causes corporate your policy right there's nothing in this policy that says if you convert the premises to a rental you lose coverage and in fact in our excerpt page seventeen is a renewal of the policy in august th teen they renewed the policy as a homeowner policy despite mr thorough actions baten they would have it would have converted it to a rental policy they didn't do that and this was months after mr pritchard had walked the site and had been informed that the damage done with vandalism in that manner for purposes of our analysis and and she informed them that she did reside on the property is that matter st of all there's no st of all i don't believe that that's an accurate statement ms alvarez her testimony was not that she spoke to them and told them she was still living there she had no reason to do that she had lost rental coverage the clerk at m said that she talked to ms alvarez but ms alvarez had a very heavy accent i've sat two feet away from or and i have tried to understand what she says and sometimes it takes four times before i finally hear the words clearly she got a very heavy accent i don't believe on the telephone the conversation was are you still living there or yes that would have been true she took a livin position o'neill road at the adult care facility he had no reason to say i still live at my old house and she did not put in that i was mistaken about that because i misunderstood even that notify the post op is that people have fluid lifestyles so they live in their house comes up they decide to move you know there's nothing in the policy that says as of the date the policy is issued  you have to provided you live in your house you will still have coverage if you move out so you have this whole idea and why howard says explicitly and be on ambiguously and it my neighbor for two months and then i came back and you know and to me howard was almost andrew tanishq the language in there was even less because it says that if you're going to rely in a policy definition you need to make it clear as to what the rules are and it's if you're going to deny coverage a year after the fact after you've already paid on the claim and accepted coverage it just don't get to do that they organ insurance code provides that coverage has to be determined within a reasonable time the proverbial reasonable time is thirty they did you characterize it as a water leak when they wrote that check they sent it to ms alvarez by the way at her address where she had moved to so you have an acceptance of coverage and payment there there's no distinction for paying a water leak or paying vandalism that same policy definition was in place when they paid the st chance for a six hundred and seventy eight dollars which by the way was only one percent of the amount of the law what happened here was the younger paid the claim by a wide margin and ms alvarez had to hire a public adjuster to help her deal with the insurance company it was just above her pay grade she she couldn't understand being mr blank comes in he does a detailed estimate he takes photographs and videotapes and he gives them to make sure tells which is respondents adjuster at the time he invites  several times please come out and look at this this is not our water at the poles kicked in the wall for her part ms alvarez testified in a declaration that mr pritchard when he came to view the damage he didn't just look at th to say yeah it's leaking in lead he took measurements in every room it took he took photographs of the holes kicked in the wall the broken cabinet doors that the been damaged countertop the light fixtures torn out he took why would he do that if it was a simple water leak what he did would see this decided to not pay the large part of the client and it wasn't until mr bragg came on the scene and starts talking to the insurance company says look come on look at this you see mr glegg declaration pages thirty four to thirty nine he detail of his frustrations in trying to get country mutual  she told country mutual she wasn't looking at the property although that's stated in the briefing at the lower court there isn't a declaration in the record and there never was to that point the only evidence that's been presented about  her moving out of the house and countries attempt to talk to her about that is the evidence that country has been able to provide and that is i believe quite clear that we were concerned about whether or not she was living in my house and that we took primitive steps to make sure that she still was when we had an indication that that wasn't the case and were guarding the renewal poking about by mr vance if you look at the  but that's not reflective of anything more than that because we had been told that her mailing address changed furthermore with regard to the statements regarding the payment of the last the check came with a cover letter that we've submitted into the evidence that explains pretty good detail exactly what countries understanding of the claim being submitted and what the payment is for  and what the payment is for so to say that it's an ambiguous check for four other physical damage without any explanation of what it's for or what coverages country thinks potentially apply i greece i'm sorry your honor i am afraid i don't have an answer for you as to what i was thinking when this briefing was drafted nearly a year ago i apologize it will be looked for reasons for today's argument so position that she did not particularly because she withheld meaningful facts about the loss and till after her lawsuit and is discussed in our briefing there's a number of relevant facts that we didn't learn and tell her st motion for partial summary judgment including that not only did she not live in that house but that she didn't retain any method to access that that was person revealed in a motion for summary judgment and although the standard for providing a proof of loss is pretty flexible under oregon law does require that you provide enough information for the insurance company to meaningfully evaluate the loss and the coverage and unlike interest can attach the language in the country mutual policy clearly a lot of the residency requirement to all aspects of that grant of coverage both for the residen building or any other building and that was the distinction in two tenets that the court found the language to be ambiguous and that was the basis of the station there as the district court found in a very toss analyzing the exact their talks it was the exact same policy language that we have here it was another country mutual policy with the same clause and the court there found that the ambiguity that the two canada court identified  howard simply was not present in this policy language and it's not a condition of forfeiture it's the grant of coverage itself for defining what the covered property is and as  to reside there whether it's applying that lack of ambiguity to a coverage limit or to the existence of coverage at all i think is is not it at distinction without a care in france the question is what does the language mean and cases and that's what's really important here the question is really about what the language means is it ambiguous and if not we need to apply it as it's written and that is the same in both cases and that is the key issue here and that is why we believe that that that distinction is is not a meaningful difference because the same law is being applied to policy in language and we're distinguishing not between  that is why carrot top should be considered as valid reasoning for our position here my apologies control was was not the correct language to use  and as you know judge rolling pin pointed out earlier it is meaningful that someone lives in the house or not if the owner listener house the risks are different and the policy does contemplate that an owner could rent out a portion of the house as i mean to correctly pointed out but it's that portion of the how the policy clearly contemplates animal its provisions that the insured lives there and some of them like that partial coverage for rental doesn't make a lot of sense if you read it any other way under organ while we do need to read the policy as a whole and if we look at those other provisions it's clear that the residency requirement is a part of the entire policy similarly you know renters policy it's not exactly the same does if the company knew you were renting out the whole thing that would render a lot of coverage is illusory so there are meaningful differences it's not simply a matter of which getting from one to the other without any kind of changes that's why there's more than one policy and with regard to the loss itself i mean we simply did not know all the facts and talk after s yes your honor i do may i proceed yes and this this this policy dolly abra has moved into this house as her primary residence there was coverage for a couple of years or so before she moved out one of the things about a homeowner's policy is that it also you pay for coverage for your personal property she didn't have personal property in the rental house she was paying for something and she was getting nothing in return for  controverted by howard howard government and but the thing about the proof of blogs proof of losses anything then as i agree below that allows an insurance company to telephone call so there were a number of factual arguments made by respondent below they were all disputed every factual assertion made by respondents were disputed so t