well you know we don't have a clock here and stack you picked a week spec you to be able to finish claim is denied is told that's in the provision it's in the law and the but the documentation pursuant to which the decision for dismissal was made was a letter dated march twenty eighth ninth two thousand and seven that letter says words to the effect of what the final amount due to the point if one yes it says our policy will not respond until a certain condition precedent is is met it says our policy so in order for it to be a denial in part we would have to show what was not recovered what was not given under the policy there is there is nothing indicating here anything that's being denied just because the complaint seeks alternative relief for the difference between the full policy between the loss of the home and the folk policy value and in the alternative the difference between the loss of the home for the amount that was paid by the competing and and sure and sure does not make this a partial deny this alleged so what what triggered the loss but what our claim or not your honor we actually as the council spent a good deal of time trying to get the insurance policy which is why you see the insurance policy submitted in the record after the suit was filed pretty much rather than evidence of the policy or specifically the minatory endorsement at issue no evidence of that being given to the point if in the record your honor but i would submit that the contract itself and the tolling provision that's in the law your honour's doesn't really have anything to do with when the plaintiff realize that look no one's going to get back to me i'm just not getting a response from the insurance companies because she's entitled to number of days left to file and if it doesn't well she's entitled to settling on that too interesting lay the me ask you question let me throw you kind of a saw the letter creates this and it at least a question of fa in the letter of the monkees left on the statute issue if we take a step beyond hanover had already told your clients that they would take the position that they were only letter say to your client no we're not giving you fifty five percent were really going to give you access so it isn't they had to use the denial and part of what your client was asking them for well i would say two things your honor first of all timidly you know that there is a summit between the parties and sell the amount that was that was asserted in the hanover correspondence is not necessarily the amount that was the hand over was willing to pay or the resolution of that claim to the contrary the complaint and the correspondence shows that the there were still ongoing open ended in this about that claim and so that the other thing i saw but at least in terms of whether or not the march twentieth letters denial i mean and my question is the status of things before this out of this case to things are such that your client has now been told that hanover is only going to pay forty four percent you've got to go to the fund for the rest of the with a third party insurance about another claim it almost sounds like the insurance was opening up the possibility of negotiations we're going to we started that we're not going to a anything until the other complaint that the court were alleging in the alternative to the twenty seven thousand dollars were alleging the difference between the amount had over pay and the total loss that was the lawyers theory trying to advocate on her behalf when surely gets a letter like this your honor does this really look like  know the consumer thanks laura thinks hey look i'm going to get twenty three thousand seven hundred nine dollars and and she didn't get it and then she wrote the insurance company and then eleven months later guess what american they're they're saying they're going to toll it they're going to told they're there are obligation to do something with the claim until the other company resolves what they're going to pick and that's who goes to your honor to stop on identify the number of days required until this of the suit is filed and so irrespective of what happened with a third party insurance i think the code and the supreme court law is very clear about what the insurance company is required to do and that's for  language the city would you would you join that argument with the fact that missing from that letter is the language required by the code concerning by the way of x number of days left  denial there's no mention of the the amounts due by a promise to be paid by hanover as you alluded to earlier are just simply does math and says look you know this much money so  just so i'm clear off hand over paid what hand over paid a sum i believe it was forty some are fifty some thousand dollars and the amount that was paid actually was then retained by homecomings and that was subject of claims against ron cummings another defendant and those claims have been resolved as well you're on t v and then i don't know that that was the end of the dispute against hanover obviously  that there's a denial in part you would think that they would satisfy that part that they agreed upon and it's a denial only as to feet amount that exceeded the amount that they agreed to pay what they paid nothing this is a situation where yes and today's world we have lots of first place insurance policies that are often concurrently place with private insurers policies and that's why i think those arguments about unconscionable ety are not to be  this is a case of and ensure that did not follow a condition of the policy it's very clear i got a foreshadowing of what some of the issues are from the court no doubt but here we have a firm condition that in that letter the denial and part of hers are basically states that but you expect the lay person to understand that the letter tonight in part well when you demand a hundred twenty five thousand dollars and they come back and tell you that we're not going to pay her twenty five thousand dollars the most act we will act and then we'll settle everything as well as like telling me well we would only pay if the we'll pay this remaining balance i believe is that the file was twenty three thousand after and over paid its hundred thousand and so it was very clear when the plaintiff would receive this letter plus we said that with this is to be without prejudice the parties has not met nor should be considered as a waiver to your rights or ours so at th point we do not waiving any limitation provision we were putting it straight out you've asked for one twenty five you're going to get one twenty five at the most it's going to be twenty three and that's after the other i way you have x number of days left to file a claim as provided in the insurance i don't have the answer to that question i'm not sure why that was not found i didn't even know that was part of it all but the brief here on a l i don't believe i don't know that particular administrative regulation is is has the force of law i am not sure that that does i looked at one from a case that the plaintiff cited for the fifth district i saw that it was after court but other than that i don't believe that that is not a self is enforceable by the plaintiff and i believe the best something that if they did not make a violation of that particular regulation then it's something the insurance department has to consider that it's not something opposed to the insurance i know but it doesn't say that it should be enforced by the administrator maybe it's a notice to the insurance company if the insurance company wants to claim that a letter is that denial in part letter  in order to get that full force in effect you need to include the number of days left before two to before a complaint need be filed who are forever bar so maybe it's noticed the insurance company certainly seems that we should people take that into account in terms of whether or not this is truly a denial and part letter well from the perspective if you're asking for a hundred twenty five thousand dollars for the carrier and they say that the you're going to get let me ask you this weren't they always asking for one hundred twenty five thousand dollars from the carry from the get go yes that was there so why you know if that's the case you know that department stating that your insurance company does not respond until the coverage limit is exhausted and to the extent that that department regulation is solely a concern or prior letter you know that's where we stand but you didn't say that you said we don't respond we will not respond until the insured other issues company and until the coverage from the others companies the cost right and the seven letter it clearly informing her that she was not going to get money from of the full amount of the policy from american security she backed this put her on notice that wait about there's a dispute going on where she was that triggered the running of that waves or forfeit that argument but didn't take didn't they claim in their briefs below in front of in front of the trial judge that they were not informed of how many days they had left it was in the motion i think they may have that this is a denial in part letter and regardless of the number of days left you better file suit timely but you didn't do that either and so she's relying on that that regulation to reinforce work for position that hanover to get information she goes to the oh my partner of insurance regulation she's going she's she's going everywhere but going what the condition of the policy required with the step by step guide i think what you are talking about villages and some point she simply sa greer the issues need only be commensurate and we've with the issue raised on appeal issues on trial court now we've actually pleaded facts in the complaint and in the motion dismissed response we cited specifically to that show that it i'm not sure that i recall there being anything on the record about how much was demanded by the plaintiff you know the plaintiff made a claim we know that we have got this letter also goes in council mentioned that the letter said we would only doesn't provide any kind of notice about what waiver is at issue let alone the statue of limitations issue which is here the i want to emphasize one more thing your honor is that there is no evidence in the record as their burden to show that the