as evidence that there was something more that we were supposed to do that was brought up in their response in october two thousand and seven and the response in december two thousand may when the trial judge granted my motion for summary judgment with a motion for reconsideration knew that this was something they want to show and they didn't show up and then when the trial judge decided to consider this she took at of all spaces thurstan by plaintiffs counsel i looked for her and couldn't find  july eleventh two thousand and seven before i had filed my motion for summary judgment so she was there in october of two thousand and seven when play the file their response my first motion in december of two thousand and eight when they filed my second post for summ judgment at the time of the hearing not at all times bill and knew that they were going to require this testimony to prove their case but it wasn't until after i got dispositive motion they're required in this court should enforce that requirement not to consider late tender evidence or a material that should have been provided at the time of the hearing the trial court abuses discretion when it the risk manager bill being they are all the agents of noah villa is the play and the trial judge made it very clear in this this very early on that the knowledge of a corporate agent is the knowledge of the corporation it's clear in this case that at all times philip the entity knew that the hard for policy did not provide coverage for the existing though it's clear a dancer conference a great tool testify we had evergreens that we were not going to assert existing building and so we could get the proper underwriting information in order to get the insurance market to do that with my client saying that in their current fossil graham tool didn't get the documents the appraisal he had to do to acquire after january fourth two thousand and five then current testified that he inquire twice at least in the two or three weeks the ticket like most it will develop but when the village got the policy in villa said i expected this policy to cover the existing buildings based on the agreement and they know it doesn't and they've got to do to do something we've done our duty we give them a policy it didn't comport with what they wanted but they know that and they're not expecting anything for them because the law collectively nose out knows everything they've got it divided different people but the bill as a whole knows everything this is this is not said as the trier of fact in this case that argument you just heard was a closing argument not a legal basis for over but he still after closing was going to camp beds for coverage of fire policy for how the building he admitted that at the record of page four twelve it was his agreement with bill b who came to him on december twenty third inside i need coverage for the building and he said wait i can't do that because of the closing happening on december twenty eighth and twenty ninth two thousand four tell you what we're going to do we're going to get the proper underwriting information after causey and we're going to put it out on the market and when asked what that meant it meant he was going to get quote under se conversation with conrad he called and said that's what she got that's what she asked well he knew upfront but that's not what you ask why didn't they ask for up front how bridge for the building he said i just can't get it done that fast but i hit it down for you after you cause the binder that was provided to my client showed coverage of the bill and then curran completely dropped the ball as a reasonable insurance agent in failing to procure the proper insurance they point  negligence and just look at the negligence of the people from the village if they didn't clean comparative negligence there can be more than one nor the last nor the nearest cause it is sufficient if it combines with other cause resulting in injury you have to then legally ignore the let's assume the praise it never got sick never ever got there is nothing in the record that shows after january fourth two thousand and five the date of the assume that it was fair to allow him miss lang fields affidavit which i disagree with given the facts of this case if first the judge decided in trying to secure her affidavit look at her affidavit ask her nomadic journey in this media from the time she was terminated or lost her job to the time she rehabilitated yourself as a nurse training mine isn't necessarily what could have occurred in two thousand and seven in there saying we have the duty to refuse but regardless of that the fact of the matter remains her  thing but because  parties that if the policy limits were awarded that we would be entitled to the additional one hundred eighty thousand dollars this was at the record page or seventy four we believe that pilate there is no need for proof of the dispenses with the need for the evidence once they agreed yeah really we have that agreement we don't have to prove numerous i'm sure his policy workers watched their comfort level they had a level of understanding and basically he said i need insurance for the velo he get that for me he said no way not that has to be able to be cut off some place the duty has to be cut off you tell them that's all we could get and then again he's left is harping on didn't kind of people didn't as of july eleventh two thousand and seven which is two months before i filed my first was persona just when she was a nurse in des moines iowa she was no longer an american from the up until the time forever did and that's where fail to produce would have provided coverage for the clean up costs and in excess of the stated policy lives in our survey the fact that the hartford policy we did produce in my reading would provide coverage over and above that that would be good evidence for them but i didn't agree that a property policy that covered the existing buildings would provide them coverage i didn't agree that player for question a policy the would provide their coverage w consider provable and proximately caused damages plaintiff failed to prove provide the jury any evidence that any negligence by crystal proximately caused them not to have a property policy that would have covered existing building is the way i read the policy will stipulate to those above the two point four million dollars loons mot based on last my understanding that he was pages three thirty three zero three thirty five in the record that immediately because of the damage to this property they had to start security and encourage the demolition cost of which we attempted thank you we thank both of you your argument this morning will take the matter under advisement