and the lease quote were both insured by state farm state farm was at liberty to prevent him from getting at his own policy pretty much without any particular concern for  the consequences of doing that because of the more obvious flaws and the fact that there could be in all third party bad take could you explain something to me as a practical matter get it get any l practical matter you might as well not file if you've got twelve people sitting in the jury box who are required to be there every day and you don't care enough to go in show up are going to hate you that's the first and second thing is i don't care how well a trial lawyer a two party case it's true no one contended that mr brown was at fault in the accident he was basically standing still in the left turn lane but what was in dispute was whether or not adam elise was at fault for this accident because the court recalls from the briefs mr leach was proceeding southbound on the highway when the city of reading police car made a left turn in front of him now the original traffic prepared by the city of reading said it was mr lisa's fault because he had been speeding it turned out that the evidence really didn't support that finding and in fact even the most like just plain every report that was done a few weeks later was unable to come up with any evidence as to whether mr least was beating and ultimately during the trial it was determined by the jury that not only the preponderance of the fault was attributable to the study of reading police car but the overwhelming fault eighty percent of the fault was attributed to the police car that made the left turn in front of mr least the significance of all of this is from the standpoint of the ground claim that if mr brown had not been able to establish some fault on the part of mr leask there would have been no recovery in the underlying case and there would have been no recovery under the under insured motorist clay that determination of liability which it very well could have gone one hundred percent liability the city of reading zero for mr leask would have meant no claims that all so this trial that mr barr has indicated  some kind of interesting side show that didn't have anything to do with the under insured motorists claim was in fact central to the ability of mr brown to proceed at ball on the under insured motorists claim now the claim that in addition to that the state form was presented with two separate and independent duties as a result of the circumstances of this case you know those are facts that are obviously under insured motors claim they're not saying that after the discrimination was made in the trial court that state farm delayed in paying the money they can't because state farm paid the money within the deadline set  thing that they're complaining about the three things are complaining about are all acts that took place in the defense of the underlying liability claim with regard to those acts mr brown was a third party claimant just like any other third party claimant and i disagree with what mr barr said earlier that well if mr brad have been insured by cal farm it would have come out differently the answer is the exact same things would have happened or a or anybody else because state farm still would have been required to defend mr leaks from the underlying case and mr brown's insurer whoever it was on the under insured motors claim would not have made any payment until the underlying case was concluded because under piece three of the insurance code under hartford vs mockery from the california supreme court they cannot determine their liability intel that happens and they're not required to make any kind of payment that happens mr barr says well yes that's ok they can defend mr leask but they should not have been allowed to vilify mr brown well first of all the the record or parts of the record part of the transcript are in the record for the court to review they certainly tax the credibility of mr brown because mr brown in part was asserting that mr leask had been speeding at least that's what he asserted in a police report turned out the t of trial he back offer that but his credibility was at issue it was it is too for the purpose of defending the position of mr leask mr pynchon the attorney for mr leask could do nothing other than attack his credibility and attempt to establish that mr lease was not responsible for this particular claim the plaintiffs say well no this is still bad faith because where you have the situation of mr brown who has who is the uninsured motorist the only uninsured motorist because the city of reading is not an uninsured motor vehicle because government entity therefore there is no under a short roundabout route is out so that's what i'm saying is that the impeach back and forth yes your honor but the point i'm trying to get to is that i'm not and i got to be a little forthright with crime not sure how it benefits mr brown over the circumstances but but the point is that in order to defend mr least it has to provide that for the fans which they do and it includes things like disputing mr brown's claims you know impeaching mr brown where it's appropriate and doing other things relying on their own experts we get into the whole issue of the medical experts and whether state farm improperly relied on the independent medical examination and again the brown side has raised three cases that deal with social security disability claims where there is this court well knows because you deal with them there's a completely different standard when you have a non examining doctor which is what those three cases involve here you did in fact have you know bradley's case you did have an examining doctor in those cases with a non examining doctor the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence you know you don't have that kind of thing here that state farm get in fact provide the defense which it was required to provide now there are a lot of collateral issues that kind of cut across this claim for example well state farm the medical payments to mr brown well that's true but medical payments are made where an insured injured in an accident regardless of who caused the accident whether it was caused by the insured by someone as uninsured motorist by somebody who's got a billion dollars in insurance coverage still medical payments are made that's first party you know essence health coverage as long as it's a result of accident that doesn't mean that state farm is making some kind of admission that mr leach was responsible in this case and so state farm have these duties did in fact perform on all of these duties it did fact defend mr leask once that was finished and that had the effect of collaterally a stopping the issues of liability and for that matter damages it paid on the lease liability policy and then within the deadline set by mr barr it paid on the under insured voters coverage which had been triggered by the outcome of the underlying case and there's no assertion of any delay in those two acts and therefore there is nothing that can be a basis for a claim of breach of the implied covenants here the court asked you know what are the cases that say things like that her early versions are farmers for surely there's a case involving a california you i am claim where there was an allegation against farmers that somehow farmers should have admitted the liability and accepted the liability and got on to arbitrate and the court of appeal in california said no the california the legislature specifically select daf there are there are alternative excuse me standards out there from which the legislature could pick they selected that exhaustion standard and therefore it is applied as a matter of california public policy as declared by the legislature here so this is a situation where state farm did what it was required to do under the policies that had been issued this is not like schwartz first the state farm s the state farm involved two couples who were both insured under the same policy there they had competing claims to the policy limit and the court of appeal said under those circumstances state situation here you do not have a lease in brown being insurance under the same policy competing for the same policy benefits you have separate obligations separate first and third party obligations owed by state far mr brown the first party obligations are broad but don't trigger until the underlying claim is resolved the third party obligations are to treat brown like any other third party claimant which for the last fifteen years under california since paid some nominal amount as we offered an accident the accident question so when they made those payments state farm was agreeing that he had almost twenty thousand dollars of medical expenses that relate to this accident one hundred percent of which would be payable are the least policy if responsible to ground is really not an issue the only real issue in this case is how much you have it in does he get to reason or insure motors called coverage farmers versus hurley's a really interesting case because it shows why under certain circumstances you need to require and then the person to pursue their own you i am coach there's no possibility of a sweetheart deal when there is the same insurance cover company on both sides of the thing and you have to remember the california under insured uninsured motorist statute was a very cumbersome statute before the grafted under insured motors coverage on it and a couple of other areas the courts have ignored plain language of the statute because they didn't make