look at this year on the investigation of an insurance claim under oklahoma law is not going to like going to a buffet a and you get to pick what you want to eat you don't get to pick what facts as an insurance company you consider that when we file bad faith claims the defendant is going to argue in a summary judgment motion in every single case there was a legitimate dispute as to coverage therefore there can be no bad day but the law in this circuit willis talks about it it says you can't have a legitimate use of dispute argument if you didn't do an adequate investigation and the sims case talks about this adequate investigation  teaches an embedded investigation is not at what if one of two things happens the manner of investigation hints at a sham disbands or otherwise suggests the material facts were overlooked or the insurer intentionally disregarded undisputed facts supporting the insurance claim that's exactly what happened here when there were two there were two investigations right by the there we were th if you're going back that far there's the underwriting inspection that was after the in insurance was purchased but but before they claim that they checked out the room before they they checked out a rug and gave it a clean bill of health if you look at that insurance may they come out with their underwriters and do their underwriting inspection june is our first notice of any leaking and that's when my client mr hamilton gets out there on the roof and notices raised  comes out in specs and my client tells him about all of the maintenance work all of the things he had done in applying tar and david cor is that basically says if you'll see in the record he didn't believe in them so he didn't put it in his report back the home office and so that fact is not considered by david poorest or the home office adjuster claim gets denied my client mr hamilton called and says wait a minute you're saying that i didn't adequately maintain this let me tell you what i did and he talks with curtis lucky again detailing what he did now this is a factual dispute that i've raised to say the jury facade because curtis like you will tell you that he doesn't recall him telling that but my client says very in phatic way yes i did tell him that injurious decide those factual disputes not not judges but he tells me all of those factors and again curtis lucky says he didn't he never considered that fact mr hamilton gets a rougher riff or goes out and does the things that a refer would do to look at he he talks to mr hampton he hears that evidence about what he had done he gets on the river he uses hay and he can move the right metal up and down and he says this is metal this is when that image  roofer by trade but he determined what it was they get the letter they do nothing with it they hire instead they don't go contact another refer they hire an engineer that's on their approved list and this is where i think the whole responsibility curtis lucky home office tell david koresh out the field go hire an engineer and a big corps does his job which was just a call on approved list rent this and they do nothing to check to see whether or not mr francis qualified to do this and in fact i think the evidence is is not is really a concrete floor expert but more importantly your honour's they don't telling this critical of here's what mr hamilton had done and when i got a chance finally to depose mr france he acknowledged one i didn't know those facts and number two those would be important facts because this isn't like there's fifteen possible causes here i mean if you look at it we everybody agrees are right screws that the water's coming in and that seal work it's cracked the tar is not meant to hold and light it's too evidence of that their underwriting inspection didn't save her shrewish rays all over this rough that somebody left but the one that they really want to ride is that they were over toward at the time of installation you know i've talked to that's mr francis ultimate conclusion he knows he's got to come up with some conclusion that is not when related so we comes up with that one and when i ask mr porter is it wasn't worth building title to rely on on that all they can't say here just go that we won't tell you some bad facts for us they have to give him all of the information and what's with that what's the bet that the that fact that he didn't consider that he knowledge is important is that miss my client mr hamilton twice got on that route and applied that car and if you look at the testimony that mr walker i had with him i think it's probably the most important testimony when in the case in it it's in multiple places but if you go and he acknowledges of the end of that little section i never got to that point because i didn't consider his manes your honor i'd like to we want to can to the fee issue  just just this fee issue really is it goes beyond this case the way the district court handled the see issue is unlike anything i've ever seen this is a situation where the day after he granted summary judgment appeared for pretrial and at that pretrial conference he was trying to encourage the parties to resolve the case and he looked at defense counsel said you know mr leverage going to get these you guys need to talk about resolving this and then we leave that that's what leads and that's the context that leads into this these negotiations and their e mail where they made the offer express we references attorney fees and costs it's in there the old they said here we're not going to apply that but if it mentions costs we will apply it at the district court level even northfield agree that that's the way it ought to be now that we're up here they're saying well that was a misapplication that was dicta old is the right after all that sound and fury and then contact my breath here and so forth i just simply tell the court that every contention that counsel made every criticism that he has made against my client northfield insurance company even if you  true and accurate which we don't concede that even if you did that would simply be an indication that there was negligence and there oklahoma law under but the low negligence does not rise to the level necessary to commit  covered under an insurance policy he goes on the side harris versus progressive direct insurance company which this court has just recently affirmed on appeal that nothing in the law or requires an insurer to investigate a claim exhaustively or to faultlessly degree of accuracy rather the investigation remains to be reasonable under the circumstances in this case what happened is that mr hamilton bought an old for lack of better term examining the convenience store that underwriting was a hundred fifty dollar inspection it was not a thorough inspection when they went into the attic to check the flexion a bins or anything else that was literally one hundred fifty dollar inspection by a third party company it's essentially showing up at the scene of the the building and making sure it's all there for lack of a better term so i want to make sure the courts are aware of the underwriting parking lot we're talking about the row the building itself had graffiti profane graffiti on my dad spray painted on the side of building it had broken windows in the back which mr hamilton never repaired even during the pendency of this crime so the again the convenience store building itself was not pristine i just think that it goes well to give an example of how will this convenience stores maintain before mr han purchased i think that the purpose is i mean the insurer won't write the coverage unless the someone goes out and gives of this inspection and if they write back and say oh the sinks got all kinds of problems on it and lists on out then they're going to exclude those things so they don't get a claim two weeks later that's correct you aren't ultimately that have to do this case and that's why the the convenience store mr hamilton's insurance policy was not renewed in the future because they had given him a list of repairs to perform and he had not performed was right i guess my point is it's not fair to criticize them for relying on the underwriter if your client did to go  with respect to the actual investigation as lying think it needs to be pointed out that mr queiroz who was sent to the building to inspect it is an experienced insurance adjuster of years and there is certainly no indication that he had a lack of training or otherwise was incompetent mr lucky similarly had practice insurance claims adjusting his entire career except for a stint while he's in the marine corps but he's a college graduate certainly no indication that mr lucky in the past is any type of sanctions imposed by him by any type of government licensure authority what mr lucky did he has as an outside claims adjuster to conduct this examination of the actual convenience store he gets up on the roof as an earl examination takes buku photographs creates a very detailed report provides that report along with the photographs to mr left mr lucky jams the photographs on his own as well they do not find any evidence of storm related damage to the metal roof in the home market which was testified and evidence in this case is is metal defamation is the most common sense that if you have a metal roof and you're intending that wind damage the metal roof it's going to have it's going to have some bins it's going to have some curling around the edges there's going to be some sort of metal defamation now i don't spend a lot of time on the screws in the over torquing and so forth but the evidence will be in the record supports the situation that these screws were basically straight up there from the other maneuvers which the screws will pop up just the coat contraction will make the screws work pop up so there's a there's repairs of the roof and that that was a material fact that a reasonable inspector would've wanted to know what's your response to that are you referring to the engineer i'm referring to the lack to his that your inspectors were told the full story we're going back to buffets and moms then or now i think that he's referencing the renter's engine year to him france that we did not tell him france about anything with respect to the main situ setter and there's a good reason for it reenters engine hearings an independent engineering company we do not want to be accused of trying to push them in any certain manner so we soon i'm out there the reason why he did that was not to deny that lying he was trying to find a way to pay the bill i was simply in the will of a the situation being that my client takes its the correct decision and granting summary judgment on the issue i will see the remainder of my time to mr daniel talk of the attorney the amount of the that they were going to put him and one of the things that tends to rub clients the wrong way is that they're going to enrich the other side's attorney with  settlements offer and so it seems to me it's been common practice for people to make these global offers saying i know you think you're entitled to fees and that you're think you're going to get  plus you have your damages so we're not going to get into how much because because most people don't want to argue about what the fees are either so they'll say we'll give you forty five and that's for everything you do deal with it so it was that i mean if i if i had a case with you and i said hey i know you want some fees i'm not going to get into how much you've earned i'll give you forty five for everything these costs everything is that good enough i don't think so because old you look at it it doesn't say  i'll start out with a with a fee issue if if judge white's order is a lot of stand it effectively will in your ability to question insurance coverage denials because it will be a  for the insurance companies to litigate these claims forced us to jump through all the hoops that you're required to when you litigate one of these kane claims and do it effectively and right before trial they'll make an offer that's just maybe a dollar ten dollars or they want to you say it will be one hundred or two hundred dollars more than the contract line and cut off our ability to recover attorney fees if you look at the purpose of thirty six twenty nine it was to protect insurers it was to give the regular folks an inability to hire a lawyer to go after a big insurance company do this sort of interpretation will not hurt an insurance company they got plenty of money to file the actions and hire lawyers and pay them by the out but this will hurt the common ordinary man's ability to challenge insurance companies decision after the off the top of your head is here in oklahoma case that sort of carries that forward this idea that you're going to broadly construe these types of statutes to carry out the purpose of allowing people to bring claims well i think that the two cases that i sided in my brief i believe stock is a tenth circuit case it's on page twenty two of my it was not just negligence it was not to simply disregard undisputed facts that were favorable to a finding of coverage not once but twice it was not simple negligence to hire an outside consultant do nothing to determine whether or not they're really qualified to do this job just say they're on the approved list so we can use them and then not give them the important facts that are undisputed that are favorable to finding coverage it is not simple negligence to not even look at your own underwriting inspection report and take the information from that and evaluating it in determining coverage it is not simply negligence to use a creased metal requirement not found anywhere in your policy and say if you don't have creased metal then you don't have a wind damage claim if that were the case they should tell us that and we'll let that that metal lube until it creases it would favor mr hamilton not going up there stood on it we would still sue them because they didn't evaluate the claim they didn't value weight all the facts they they just check boxes here it's not my job to figure this out or hire i have him go hire him nobody checked to see a friend knows what he's doing and they don't give him all the evidence and that's just not good faith what's the evidence at the adjuster's didn't know what they were doing with respect to this deal rooms david koresh is his testimony is that he's he's installed one purchased lucky he's never been on a metal roof and locked never install one all he knows is what they taught him and it's important you'll find this in the record although they say we've got to have creased metal in order to have a claim that covered if you go back and you look at the travelers training which curtis looking at knowledge he's never seen and that is volume nine six seventy nine even travelers training and their confidential training that they apparently don't really used to train they say that when can loosen or pull screws as well as binned and that's what we had here but they recess and for a few minutes