unsupported it's important to note that all of fireman's fund allegations were disputed by their own professionals employees and outside contractors the affirmative defense firemen s claim that some damage was done by now on water related causes is a fabrication of the truth and working to remove the ice from the roof dislodged a large block that crashed into the mechanical room causing damage this was immediately reported by the insurance fireman's fund claims noncompliance concerning paperwork they have everything i have always complied as quickly as possible to the best of my ability fireman's fund claims concealment misrepresentation fraud false statements related to this insurance all of these claims were put to rest by firemen spawns witnesses firem demanded that ne adjusters turn in an itemized list of contents that was prepared by four different people and never vetted or cross checked for duplicate ition which would be normal policy according to fire and  adjusters it's obvious that fireman's fund intentionally try to make the jury bias and with the at tricks false statements that were unsubstantiated and confused the jury the counterclaim and special defenses because there was no evidence of wrongdoing on my part the fireman's fund claimed its nonpayment was justified by its special defenses which defenses were also specifically states first counter claim concerning the water loss water damage was not a result of ice dam because the company was hired to remove ice and a block fell through the roof to less school used extension pole to poke holes to range for television that did not work to be placed underneath a leak in the ceiling the jury did not understand that the counterclaim pointed to told us go there is no proof because this never happened there was no proof that  feels guilty of breach of contract concealment or fraud i never feel to cooperate and never misrepresent myself in any way the second count to claim fraud against need a patent kill in the water l the jury found guilty not guilty yet found me guilty for breach of contract this is based on stacks of paper showboating and confusing the jury which i will address then we come to the fire laws step by step fireman's fund a complete investigation of the fire last bringing in the best experts from all over the country to try to open a criminal investigation first for arson for fraud they even went so far as to contact federal fraud division with no result at all i cooperated from the very beginning handling over everything that was asked for along with answering questions through interviews and depositions investigation showed all my assets financial history along with the company's site on properties and all paperwork referring to my bankruptcies and anything else that was asked for there was nothing concealed or fraudulent the witness on record verified the areas that fireman's fund brings up as problematic to be acceptable and routine it is documented in the transcripts in testimony by ms mathis mr christiansen as well a special investigator mr m i to bring up beyond three hundred sixty degrees estimate mr mathias testified that it was in the parameters of cost that many people have done their own estimates in the past and it was perfectly acceptable fireman's fund had done a complete investigation of all my file finances and companies i own prior to any payments which they testified is a policy that they have for any claims over one hundred thousand dollars miss mathis paid the estimate after vetting it herself testifying it was an acceptable and accurate estimate of cost i also would like to add mr to lascaux in the middle east and in this deposition that he prepared the estimate no concealment no proof of misrepresentation on was a house right on and yes it was in the hands of financial information was handed over to fireman's fund on my behalf it was no representation we never stayed at berkshire road it was just again the tactic that was used my financial situations of my tax returns were misconstrued by firemen spawn to the jury therefore they were given facts the jury was misled because they were told over and over i found no taxable income and that i lost money therefore i could not have been able to afford the things that i had this was bias and confusing to the jury so far as my bankruptcy goes the other six people living in the home may please the court my name is rhonda tobin from robinson and call i represent the fireman's fund insurance company the judgment in favor of fireman's fund should be a firm for two reasons first the jury assessed the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and returned a verdict and fireman's fund for fireman's fund this court has held that a high degree of deference is accorded to the jury's evaluation of a witness is credibility and jury verdict should be disturbed with great infrequency second a motion for a new trial should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury reached either a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice the trial court in this case found that the jury's findings reflected reasonable assessment of the evidence at trial upon review of that ruling by the court this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to fireman's fund and should reverse that ruling only if this court finds there was an abuse of discretion both of these are highly deferential standards in this case the jury could reasonably have found several instances in which appellant concealed or misrepresented facts to fireman's fund in connection with both her water claim and her fire claim importantly this court would have to find that every every finding by the jury of a misrepresentation was seriously seriously erroneous because the trial court correctly instructed the jury that any one misrepresentation or concealment was sufficient to avoid coverage under fireman's phones policy that policy which is in our supplemental appendix at fifty three says that the entire policy will be void if an insur met misrepresents any material fact or circumstance the jury found in favor of fireman's fund both on palin's claims and also on firemen's funds claims awarning fireman's fund approximately three hundred thirty thousand law fraud a finding that had to be proved by clear and convincing evidence with respect to the water claim as judgment and found in this post trial ruling the court could reasonably afoul that appellant either misrepresented or concealed facts from fireman's fund during its a best again specifically the submission of the beyond three hundred sixty degree concept and voice proposing the fireman's fund pay to rent property of berkshire drive could reasonably have found the appellant misrepresented or concealed facts to fireman's fund during its investigation of this lie us particularly about the valuation and ownership of the items that were claimed and the proof of the loss the jury could reasonably a found that appellant was in dire financial condition that in the year before the fire on her bankruptcy filing she listed on it only two thousand dollars in household goods but that a year later she submitted a claim to fireman's fund for household goods and the amount of seven hundred and ninety thousand dollars the jury could reasonably a found that despite this dire financial could condition appellant claimed owning twenty six t eleven thousand dollars of shoes eighteen thousand dollars of books and that she can material misrepresentations about the source and value of various items including coach bags and rugs and just as a sign or watch judge i didn't have properly instructed the jury that a single instance of concealment or misrepresentation is enough to void the policy plus in order to prevail in this appeal the appellant must demonstrate that the jury c reasonably have found any one of the list and misrepresentations that fact along with the fact that this court must give great deference not only to the jury's findings but also to the trial court's ruling on the motion for new trial mandates at the core a from the judgment appellant cannot demonstrate that the jury verdict was either seriously erroneous or a miscarriage of justice if there are no questions we rely on our submissions thank you thank you