appellant this case as the many cases cited in the briefs require a particular facts and circumstances for all of these issues to be decided on those facts the facts in this case a very unique and unlike any of the cases cited by united see in the painting summary judgment we believe that the district court committed several reversible errors including the judge reversed actually reverse a standard for summary judgment and by that i mean she accepted the statements of fact given by you and i see in the light most favorable to the defendant movement rather than accepting the facts and evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving plaintiff it's hard to determine whether next reversible error is that the court made no analysis or discussion of what the insured duty to provide satisfactory  end i believe she put the burden on the insured much greater then and it sure is required to prove if you look at the judge advances decision in the jesuit case i think she set set out very clearly that these the insured burden is only to provide enough facts to put the ensure on notice in this case contrary to the very statement by judge van to which he said so unfair to put the burden on the insurer to actually prove the precise damages and cause that's what happened in this case the court did not an analyze or make any any decision on the affirmative duty on the part of the insured to investigate that's important because in her decision i think the building block for her decision that the delay was caused solely by the plaintiffs and the insured even though the insurer really didn't make any affirmative independent analysis of a sound one of the problems course that your client kept changing your stories to want happened well your honor i can respond to that that in july two thousand and sixteen the a gesture mr md and what mr mclean told him was basically the probable cause of the laws and this to complicate this is a case where you have an m r i in eight a one needed an expert engineer to determine it's what i'm getting at is if they were private by a rd party engineer that's a cause of the water intrusion there was never a doubt that water intrusion did cause damage mr mclean told them that the quint when you when you clinch an m r i in the helium is that subzero with pressure the pipe contracts and that caused a gap in the hole in the in the roof allowed the water coming in well that's exactly the same conclusion that the insurer came up with the insured was required to hire experts he's not an engineer he's got a x or the insured had to go to the expense of hiring experts a m r i facility geophysicist a material expert they contracted to provide an estimate and the architect now what did you and i see do when it received that information nothing from the very beginning from the very beginning it knew because of these complicated issues and it said in letters we need to hire an engineer expert to determine the cause of the damage and the cause of the loss right did they ever harder next or did they ever hire an expert to look at the very opinions in expert report no they did  not and on that point let's look at some of the the record and the evidence that was produced one of the positions of the court and you and i say was that the insurer never provided the photographs prior t where you see this healing come down hang the roof any video from inside the m r i room which showed the water coming through and what did they do with the videos there's not a single piece of evidence saying they did anything with those videos what do you what is your theory as of today as to what caused the damage well essentially it's the same theory that mr mclean told mr costin in july two thousand and sixteen what happens when quint it's three hundred and fifty degrees minus thirty four thousand and fifty degrees fahrenheit when it comes down the pipe it shrinks the pipe and so what happens is a pipe shrinks as it exits the roof and  is caused if they had heavy grain that's what mr klein said that's what the proof of lost to the insurers said the issue of whether didn't didn't such here are the factors for that late request for information no doubt about that prolonged in continuous communication no doubt about that intentional delay we believe the facts  brown stated that that's not enough insured best interest in mind and that demanding information from insured does not satisfy only unions affirmative duty to investigate an unjust claims in good faith that's the bad face argument the court kelley and said there is a duty to protect the interest of the insured instead of the self interest let me go to the the facts of that it was constant we continued to investigate we need more the deadline coming up on june th two thousand and seventeen the internet is that they weren't looking at anything they were investigating they kept asking for information because that they were hoping to make doctors she i but you're in what you were reading from was not this case it no it was not to try to get century which judge white's case the illinois union case that i was reading from is judge good thank you the district court noted that the interior requested photos of damage in records of repair on ten different occasions are you saying that's wrong i'm saying that they may have requested it but they were provided photographs on several occasions so you're saying they already had everything they needed and there they were not they were not repeatedly asking for the same information it's mine position that they were asking for the same information they didn't do anything with it they didn't need to they did not unless they have everything already regardless of whether they're doing anything with what they have did was their compliance with the information within the st or nd or rd or th or th time of asking or is the record reflect that they didn't have the information but the only information they didn't have is photographs of the repairs before they were made in this case you have a facility that instance it's got water damage so the insurer had no option other than quickly say there were photographs of the damage the water damage before the repair for a made up you know insurance companies have databases this material to drive across this ceiling caused this they have in every one of these cases and hard they did a heart instrument they have a policy provision in their policy that says within thirty days of receiving the proof of laws we have to tell you our intention as to whether we're paying or not paying but they told them that that the claim that they rejected the proposed laws and so that tells you they're not really pursuing the will no reasonable insured would have thought that this was the going to be an amicable resolution once they rejected the loss and once their repeatedly asking for the same information and they've never said we normally pay claims like this there's none of the positive language in this case like in other cases there's nothing that would lead a reasonable what in the record would leave a reasonable insured to believe other than it's taking a long time and that's not enough because your honor they led him to believe that he had to prove his damages he had to prove his case in november th well that was that would be a negative thing wouldn't interest and he says in that i hope now we can have an amicable resolution because he was believing that the delay was due to him not providing this proof of loss that he provided let  appeals also affirm that dismissal this lawsuit was filed too late and you and i see did not waiver trying to enforce the time limitation period other reasons why this case should be dismissed the plaintiff utterly failed to cooperate in the adjustment of the claim and there was no competent evidence that you and i see acted in bad faith the trial court was absolutely correct on all of those points now in our recitation of the facts which i point to say i know it was tedious but we went through that entire claims file to show the court that st of all the insurance claim almost an entire year after the occurrence and now as it already paid the repairs to the property to you and i see you made multiple efforts time and time again to get information crucial to the adjustment of the claim you do you agree though that none of the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the repairs to be made right away so they could continue to conduct the usual activities of the facility perhaps you are yes however a reasonable insurer the reasonable business owner would also have documents of what was damaged what was repaired who repaired these items and how much it cost we never ever got any information on any of those things there were no pictures of the damage just that he has said there were three or four pictures that were provided to to the insurance company that did show standing water that dumped him before he said there was a whole note book of pictures maybe i am not aware of that and that is the st time i'm hearing that there were binders of pictures and i still haven't seen binders of pictures so i'm not i'm just not aware of your own also bassett three reservation of rights letters in addition to the ten or maybe eleven or twelve sheetrock damaged that was never given to us and i'll tell you after three years after the occurrence and deep into the litigation well after the lawsuit had already been filed two separate occasions plaintiffs council provides hundreds of pages to me that had never been provided to the insurance company prior to this time i will say that it was a haphazard i say chaotic grouping of documents and it's very difficult to tell what was actually matched with you know actual damages that are alleged but that's the st time we got any information and  years after the occurrence so to say or to suggest that what that you and i see was asking for information that had already been produced by the insured during that year of adjusting the claim it's not accurate it is not accurate we did receive least received some photographs that showed some standing water on the floor and that's it there were no photographs of the roof there were no photographs of  the roof before the occurrence or after or before the repair there wasn't any information given about who repaired anything i mean just basic things that and ensure insured is supposed to pursue it to the contract there was up it was a moving target actually day pasta of testified to that in his deposition that is part of the record that at st it was he was told this was a wind event that somehow the pipe that with through the machine should never been placed in the room where it was placed gives too close to a wall and those two inch attraction between the magnetic image up in the magnetic component of the m r i machine and that they had nothing to do with what caused it all of that those documents that we received in discovery had nothing to do with the causation of the event it was all about allege because it narrows when it gets really cold and all of that that's a way that it's constructed that's not the wind or anything but it is and we ultimately figured out after the lawsuit was fi pipe that was constructed through the roof did not comply which is standard construction protocol that there had not been a proper boot placed around the that pipe that came out that would protected it from leaks so it was we would have never found that out had not seen some photographs that were provided after this litigation so it came back to yeah problems with workmanship problems with construction with the design so you and i see was always very concerned that this is not a covered cause of loss this was initially considered a purported to be a wind event but it it clearly was just never was very clear what really happened and us hiring it in gear would have never determined that because the only way we were able to determine what actually happened was when we got some photographs from relevant to mock hollowing weird shoot within two year your honor thank you for putting me on the track that i need to be on which is to tell you to explain to you why there was no express tacit action on the part of you and i see that should have led any reasonable insurer to believe that you and i see was waiving his rights to enforce the time  limitation provision in the policy there's multiple case law we've cited to in our briefs that explains that he did it it is within the insurance right to have a limitation period in a policy and here are just some of the facts i think are really important here that the courts find important you will not find in this record that we ever you and i see ever told dr shams and yet that the claim would be paid never provision in his policy never deprive him of any right to ask questions about his policy we did not create his apparent ignorance about the terms of his policy we never this represented the time limitation of the policy never concealed anything material required to be disclosed under louisiana law and never made a partial payment in the house it's dr shams nigga has said his subjective belief is that this was going to be resolved but the this court has stated that it is an objective it's the reasonable man standard what insured would under these circumstances three reservation of rights letter saying there's problems here with letter on december th that said that it was looking for quote looking forward to an amicable resolution well that was from d again i think that that goes to my point i was just trying to make which is that what he subjectively thought was happening was absolutely not  supported by any of the facts the insurance company just said we reject your proof at last in its entirety and he writes a letter saying we look i look forward to an amicable resolution there was whether he believed that subjectively that's not the test for this court to look at today it's whether there was whether any of the facts showed that indicated dr hamza you know i'm going to back off and i'm not going to get i'm not going you know get one of my multiple lawyers and i'm currently working with to even look at this and or my going to you know i'm going to believe that i just have forever to file this claim it's unreasonable that policy or not to understand what the terms are in the policy and this time limitation provision is pretty clear it's pretty expressed and it just was ignored by dr shams nia not due to anything that we did to induce him to ignore it but he just he just ignored it and we're entitled to rely on that that provision we did not waive it the claim was the lawsuit was filed three months cases have been dismissed for the insurance failure to comply with its obligations under the policy to cooperate and so i do raise that i want you to know that that is that is a also a reason why this case is properly dismissed and finally there was no competent evidence that you and i see acted in bad faith the court the trial court was correct saying that when an insured has legitimate doubts about coverage for a particular claim the insurer has the right to litigate such a questionable claim with being  has a right to have has a right to litigate such a question will claim and that that there was no bad faith indicated by the facts in this case repeatedly again there were requests that dr shams new please provide us with information who did you pay what were the damages what was what were the repairs that were made none of that was ever given to the insurance company i mean just basic information is louisiana that say that the insurance contract is the law between the parties and that the insurer shirt is presumed to know the contents of the policy kelly doesn't affect that it doesn't abrogate that well established louisiana law and it doesn't reverse any of those cases that we rely on in our brief that stated that there was no obligation on the part of the you and i see to tell th about the limitation provision in the policy and there was no obligation on the part of you and i see to you know tell him what is in the policy in the reservation of ri letters you and i see properly and appropriately said hey if you're the provisions in the policy that we're looking at in terms of coverage that could you know could be a problem for you plaintiffs say that we should have also said and by the way you have to file a lawsuit by a certain time and we respectfully submit there's no duty under louisiana law to tell an insured they has to file a lawsuit by a certain time there's no law about that and that is not bad faith it's not and therefore there's a dispute over the coverage that's not our case that's not what we're arguing yes we admit that they sent reservation right in the woods feeding coverage are bad bad face is their and so they that's where the kelly case comes in because kelly says that the insurer in a bad faith case breach of of good actual record as for them never the top of the the roof they were given a video of the clinch onto the roof which showed the pipe configuration their own expert in the gay she couldn't figure it out for a while and by the way they hired an expert one month in february two thousand and seventeen after delimitation appeared descried and before suit was filed so they did keep it open why i don't know we found that during the litigation only found it o they took the position that it was going to be filed in the head that defense why would they need to hire an expert unless they knew that their investigation was not complete that's a kind of expert they should have hired during the claim adjustment period to determine the particular circumstances that my client had gone over so they don't have to do that anymore all they have to do is try to this case they said they need an expert for them to determine what the cause and the amount of damage for this particular m r isis illative that had water damage they told my client they were hiring once they took mr mclean tol would be glad to meet with their expert never hard mix burke and therefore when we were giving them information they didn't know what to do with them because they didn't have an expert or a contractor with the estimate that we provided him to do an actual estimate that every other insurance company does did they are excuse the failure to file within two years let me let me explain because you're going to the for the courses and for instance in s