pursuing this appeal requiring the court to vacate the dismissal and in this case back to the district court with instructions for it to remand the case back to state court number two the district court erred in compelling appraisal and dismissing the complaint and time allowing that argument will also have two parts st that the policy by its own terms requires appraisal of disagreements over the amount of damage to a vehicle only and not a disagreement over the amount payable by usa and nd that even if the policy could apply to a disagreement over the amount payable under florida law it does not appl disagreements where the amount of the payment hinges on policy coverage in interpretation because under florida law those questions can only be decided lawyers and not by appraisers and mr max claims only present substantial likelihood of future harm or a claim for money damages mr mcafee never claimed a substantial likelihood of future damages he had declaratory standing when he filed the suit because the also had filed a each of contract claim for us a failure to pay title license fee mr mac's title license the claim became moot during the appeal when it did he not only lost the standing to pursue the breach of contract claim he also lost the standing to pursue his declaratory claim because it depended on the existence of the breach of contract c gerber was you have to have a claim for monetary damages and i believe pre clearly what that meant was a separate claim for monetary damages as opposed to a claim for declaratory really which at some not necessarily your honor there's a variety of different legal methods under the florida statute and so they would use pick one of those methods and they would make an offer and that might or might not be more than the illegal method that they were using c c c system so it doesn't inevitably lead to more money we just don't know but i think the important thing is that i think a bright line rule is it's much easier here if we just say you have to have a separate claim for breach of con track or for money then we know there is standing or there is not if we get into whether or not a declaratory relief does or does not ask for indirectly for monetary relief or could somehow lead to monetary relief then every declaratory relief claim the comfort that addresses past behavior becomes very amorphous and instead of a bright line for standing we have this this this you know very amorphous stand standard and what it could allow is somebody to file a declaratory judgment based totally on past circumstances add in a supplemental release climate's as and when i when that's i want money and then they would automatically have article three standing and they can move for certification under rule twenty three b three and i don't think that the that under an emperor that was the intent of the court that merely by whatever supplemental relief we request that all claims for past declaratory relief are going to meet the standard of article article three i think the bri line standard should be there has to be a separate claim for damages where there is no standing or of the court going to create a mess the district courts are going to be dealing with for years now the consequences moot on appeal this court has consistently dismissed the appeal vacated the district court's judgment and remained in the case back to the district court and when the court case originated in state court this court when it vacated remanded the district court it remains that with instructions to remain the case back to state court and you know let me ask you a question about that because i do think that i   i mean your view you can see that was standing at the removal would it really be appropriate at this point in the case to say that if there was a lack of standing for this particular claim that the case needs to be remanded back to stake or absolutely your honor and i don't think there's any other choice the reason that we vacate a judgment below when a case becomes moot on appeal is otherwise the case would become affectively non reviewable so we have to vacate that judgment because it's now non reviewable and it now has after re man it has no article three standing and this court has consistently said that when a case was removed from state court to the district court in the district court it's now whether originally or henri man as in front of a case that doesn't have article three standing what it must do is remain  state court because it doesn't happen you're stiction so i don't think there's any other option but to remove it back to state court because another another question on standing so you in your complaint not only do you assert claims of on your own class pap and also have a class and you say that there is a potential for a declaratory judgment to give them relief in the future because there's still governed by these contracts right there still under the insurance contracts so why is the potential for declaratory relief that would help you in the future under similar circumstances similar to auto accidents why isn't that enough to give you standing well your honor and in a addressed exactly that and said that the fact that you're still a teacher in an shirt under the policy which some of these people are and some are not after their total loss amount is not alone a substantial likelihood of future harm that there has to be more evidence and merely that there is a theoretical possibility that someday an insured will be again be in an accident or a total loss act so that isn't is not enough to give them standing and as to the pastor leap for the reasons i said i think we want to draw a clear line that you don't have a substantial likelihood of future harm that the only way they are standing is if there is a separate claim for damages with the little bit of time i have left if your honour's are interested i would address the appraisal issue on on the merits and i would start with the the nd argument st which is that this court recently made it very clear that claims like max presented only legal issues that have to be decided by courts regardless of the wording alone thank you regarding of the regardless of the wording of the appraisal gravity storm and that that florida appellate decision should be in the absence of contrary florida supreme supreme court authority should be considered binding by the court general contractor then the profit and overhead of the general contractor would be covered the the disagreement was not over the legal coverage of profit in overhead it was over whether that claim to needed in his particular case a general contractor that is a factual question suitable for appraisal but the coverage question of whether profit in overhead can be required if it's part of the actual cash value the an interesting way to distinguish more are we not in that same situation know that you just posited because the insurance company is saying look you told your car we've got to pay some money for the little car here's the money that we're going to pay you and then your argument is that's not the right amount of money and is not basically what's going on here and isn't that something that requires appraisal no your honor we have a declaratory judgment action and the st thing that we're asking for a declaration is that the c c c system is illegal under florida law and breaches the policy in which it was incorporated to use whether or not a electronic database meets the statutory criteria is a pure question of on the nd claim is whether or not actual cash value includes dealer fee well the same exact reasoning that it says that it's a question of law whether title license fees are covered by actual cash value applied to whether dealer fees are covered by actual cash value so the declaratory relief on those things is a question of law the point is not the insurance claim is about money that's what us a key thing it's about money well every insurance case is about money the distinction is whether the payment of the money hinges on a legal interpretation which only courts can decide and not a crazy hours or a factual question which is suitable for appraisers d and in this case the amount of money payable d if this ever leads to more money hinges on a policy standing appellate counsel states that they're not challenging the amount of money and that there's no standing because they are simply seeking declaratory relief was true that generally true to an extent the master of his own complaint but that's not without limit just as courts ignore attempts to get around contractual arbitration provisions or contractual imitations provisions by trying to put a claim as negligence tagging title fees are not issue of the case in a i want to concede that dealer fees were paid and that's in the record plaintiff attached to their complaint the valuation report and it lists i believe nine dollars comparable the doctrines for mileage and options though the dealer fees were included so the question can only be was the amount paid sufficient that's a fact question that's a value determination that is proper fo bat foot and they cite that for the proposition that a c v is a standard phrase included insurance policies to describe the extent of coverage provided by the policy as it uses the word coverage they say that means the c v determination your question the court but just like the definitions in the policy take that quote out of context issue and j n h auto was the coverage question was how much mean dollar amount not whether something was or was not  six and this court in jan h auto said in the act or the supreme court explained that actual cash value the actual value rest in terms of money of the thing for the purpose every issue the plaintiffs receive me appellant goes back to loss amount of loss and a c v and they say in page eleven of their brief that they admit saying that in the context of the appraisal cause if the parties disagree over whether the physical damage to the covered auto is sufficient to make a total loss they disagree over the amount of loss and the disagreement is subject to appraisal amount of loss can only be value it's not how many body panels on the vehicle were damaged in a disagreement over the number of engine components requiring repair the entire provision is about dollars and cents the very st section of part d coverage that issue says we will pay you for loss to your covered auto it's all about value not whether or not something is covered and i would point out with respect to the claim that they're not seeking money damages and with respect to the valuation they say that may or may not result in payment later with respect to the dealer fee at a minimum they absolutely are seeking an order for money it's not that is a euphemism i can imagine if any one of your honors was a different court judge in ordered u s a c i c to make an offer and plaintiff came back and said well they offered the money but they're refusing to pay it i would not want to be representing u s a c i see in that hearing under florida law and sure they are compelled to pay undisputed amounts the order of the court to offer dealer fees would be in order to pay those dealers fees side in case argues i think with some force behind it that there's really nothing for an appraiser to do because their argument is a pure argument of law it really isn't having to do with you know looking at a car and evaluating how much it would cost to replace  r what do you say about that sort of practical argument and i guess my question is really how do you envision an appraisal working and if you know a case like this your honor the appraisal provision is not just the cost repair it's the cost to repair or replace and that is what an insurance company is obligated to do although they frequently cite to actual cash value that is a limitation of liability and in insurance policies you st have a grant of coverage and then you have separately limitations or exclusions the grant of coverage requires u s a c i c only to pay for loss the actual cash value is the limit in the amount of loss is the amount it would cost to repair or replace though the issue then for the appraisers is what is the cost to repair or replace what is the value and that is a is one given that their own record establishes that they were included here the question is was what u s a c i c aid the fish and repaired or replaced including those dealer fees and although they those appraisers would come to some number based on this question of do you really have to pay these dealer fees or not to get a new car and then that would be potentially subject to a rd appraiser who would break the tie and then that would be the end of the appraisal processes that means that how it's supposed to work very closely on the issue but he praises the correct me if i'm wrong but it's a subtle distinction you're on an issue or the appraiser is what would be the amount required lair or replace and the contract requires braces that or both of those numbers that really make an overlap but know and so that's and you know i think that's a really important point you just made because it's just the plaintiff has crafted this case in such a way where he almost disclaims and injury in fact right i mean he's saying it's not necessarily true that i would give him money so why don't we just skip to that step and assume that there but i'd assume he doesn't have an injury in fact and then assume there's no standing and just get rid of the case because your honor looking at the entire complaint plaintiff does allege a breach of contract he doesn't put a caption count one breach of contract but in the complaint he alleges usa c i c breached be difficulty down the line of siding with plaintiff is asking or district court for was an award of money and now they want to avoid that judgment and have it set aside by saying what we lack standing because we're not really asking for money justice is blind but your honors aren't the complaint alleges don't go all thank you ma'am you're welcome what if what if we did this what if we issued an order that sent this case is dismissed and reshad be remitted to the to the florida state courts on the condition that note plaintiffs in the case will ever be awarded any money would you be ok with that and no your honor because i don't know if that would be binding on a state court it's an interest in arresting jurisdictional question i hadn't thought of i would disagree with the palin's counsel that the if the court does find that helen now lacks article three standing that the entire judgement the district court should be vacated in the cases it was not at the time the judgement the district court cases they cite where the entire underlying judgment is vacated the issue resulting in affected all the claims here the issue of fighting stipulations of under seventy five thousand dollars when someone's trying to get out of diversity removal so you know this happens when someone is is plain have says look my case is not worth seventy five thousand dollars  can't be the case in this court has never done that this court no longer has no article three standing it's become moot both claims of become moot because there's no longer a claim for damages if the order of dismissal were allowed to stand it would affect really being non reviewable which is not tolerable which is why when a case becomes moot on appeal it has to be the judge may have to be vacated and if it was removed from state court sent back to state court because we can't have a non remove a non reviewable order now let's go to appraisal and i'll remind the court that we do have a threshold argument that this particular appraisal clause only applies to disagreements over the amount of damage and not just agreements over the amount payable but will reserve that for the briefs in a just an address the other issue the montra throughout mr  embury thing was this case is about money this case is about money and using declaratory relief doesn't change the fact that it's about money this misses the point entirely and this was what we were discussing at the end  my before at the end of my presentation just brasher an amount of money the amount of money payable can hinge upon either factual issues suitable for appraisal or legal issues which of coverage which have to be decided by a court and in this case whether the methodology used by them is illegal is is a question of law requires applying a statute florida statute to the facts of the c c system that is not something an appraiser can do the other question is what what is covered by actual cash value  this case in mills held that whether contractor profit and overhead was covered by what the actual cash value was a question of law and decided it in that way  title license fee claims are covered by actual cash value is a question of law subject to court and they're not appraisal and dealer fees are simply no different and that's the key i think judge pressure you have a good point well what would what would go to appraisal so if it were about dealer fees if the legal the the legal question is whether or not they're covered at all and the appraiser could not would be operating in a blind spot because they would know without a legal ruling by the court if i were the person in the appraisal i would go in and say i'm going to buy my new car from he a hyundai you know better and they charge an eight hundred and ninety nine dollars dealer fee but what the appraisers did they would have to award it so we get the dealer fees but we've been out all the hundreds of dollars the appraisers would cost that's the silly process and in terms of whether  the methodology is legal or not what he's saying is just let them decide on the value of the car and the legal question of whether the method they're using escapes review or ever and that is certain and that legal question this case review forever and i don't think that the appraisal clause is designed to allow the use of an illegal method to continue indefinitely because we can decide the value of the car through  some other method and that's essentially what they're what they're arguing here so this is about legal issues and because it's about legal issues it's not subject to