a legal provision that is a statute of limitations of three years right for act and agreed upon obligations and d under a mortgage agree you reckon mean we're we're not really acting here we're considering anything beyond what the statute requires and your opening brief seemed to me primarily you argue the continuing violations doctrine with the reply brief then concentrated enormous effort because of because blake was decided it in between the filing of the opening brief and the reply brief and blake obviously made clear that between violation daughter was not a political here however that the separate call doctorin could save mr evers claims beginning in two thousand and fifteen right and two thousand and fifteen again under your own under blake there is no continuing violation on these facts however there is as in blake there is a series of separate violations each of which trigger or have their own limitations spirits talk about them and hearkening up which is just in this with saying the agreement sets forth the report of the parties obligations to each other and in section three the obligations imposed on the board or to demonstrate that the bank was on notice paid the amount due and as i read the record i see assertions that the bank received no notice but i see no caring of a burden of proof either plaintive that notice was received or given either by himself the bar or under were generous reading his age and his insurance company so tell me how is it th way of receipt of rooms yes so that but so so that i understand then are you asking us to extrapolate from that this that past experience this continuing i mean is that the soul of the venture basis for soon to you george it's a question no no you're not your honor but it's one and i believe a reasonable jury could infer could find based policy in july of every year and he does well in twelve and thirteen without mr ebbers involved without him providing renewal notice they were needed and based on that evidence i believe a jury could find reasonably that they also got a notice in two thousand and fourteen and just didn't pay the just for whatever reason didn't pay the premium secondly and separately as an independent basis for for our claim is the argument which we s relationship is between him and kerry any gets a better deal from another carrier the size two place insurance with that carry then again it's going to be up to him is it not to alert the mortgage be to who that carrier is or ask that the carrier send notice to your door get you if if if he was switching careers and got a better premium at least from the outset whether we're talking right real legacy whether we're talking about a successor chosen successor carriers to real legacy the obligation is going to be in the  terms of what was contemplated in the st instance when he obtained insurance at the closing and provided his aspiration scotiabank with the name of the carrier and the information that was necessary to renew the policy at that point it was out of his hands he has only obligation was to ask for a fund sufficient to pay the premiums he did that and heard nothing at all about this state scotia every year renewed the insurance legacy to someone else if they had the information concerning to whom and how much premium to pay your honor it's certainly you have to be reasonable you have to believe that they were negligent or reckless and not doing it i've i believe that happens i believe that's not impossible that in two thousand and fourteen for whatever reason they neglected to pay his premium they clearly know when it was due based on their past the past three years of their payments so i have every year they clearly knew it was due for some reason they don't pay it they never provided an explanation it was a negligence was a recklessness was intentional legacy and two after the hurricane a hurricane or in two thousand and seventeen he contacted related c and said i want to make a point that is certainly consistent with someone who did not receive notice that his policy had been cancelled and that he was now covered by good morning i think the court has already hit on many of the subjects that i was going to address this morning every now and then we get very often and all the time is in my experience  certification of mailing that he signed a closing means is that this is the address the same court address to which we are going to send all notices regarding your mortgage loan if you want that address to change you have to tell us in writing and abner never did that he never gave an alternate address he continued to use his st croix address and in fact still uses it today as far as i thought as we know but he certainly continued to use it throughout all of these events and so  the answer your question is no customer is not supposed to have to mailing addresses for purposes of clarity and knowing where to send the know this is they're supposed to be one it is them that's why there's a mailing address certification at closing and then if the customer was wishes excuse me to change that address of course the customer is free to do so so if mr ever wanted to receive mail in missouri after he moved in two thousand and fourteen all he had to do was notify the bank he did not cashed it so we know that he was continuing to collect that mail there's absolutely nothing in the record other than mr ebbers bare self serving statement to support the claim that he didn't receive the notices the record suggests that he just didn't bother to read them and that isn't the bank's problem and and you go back to the discussion about the banks obligation under arrest and under the mortgage the bank obligation is to pay an amount when do the banks can't pay without an invoice banks don't just write checks to insurance companies based on what they charged the previous year and we know from that once the insurance carrier is made aware that a bank is an additional loss that when the borrower confirms that they want the insurance renewed insurance carrier is the one that messed up in two thousand and fourteen and failed to send the notice but we do know from the banks affidavit after searching their records and from logic since they sent three letters in two thousand and fourteen saying abner we have not received your renewal notice that the bank didn't get it whether that was mr a real legacies fault is really not at issue because clearly in bringing this claim and in trying to establish that there was some sort of violation of arrest when the bank purchased a forced place coverage so that it collateral would be protected there has to be some proof that the notice was sent by someone and for reasons that we will never know mr abner made no for to provide that proof all he had to do was request for a real legacy proof that they sent the notice if he didn't or you know because they are his carrier as  pointed out i think i judged miss a borrower can change insurance companies premium amounts can change it can go up or down depending on whether the coverage changes in the way the gregs know if they get that information right they get a bill an invoice from the insurance company that's what they pay they they can't just write a check based on an invoice that doesn't exist let me get you going to back to work yes or do you agree kickback for the way it was placing insurance and bates there was a separate rest of aisle ation the separate a cruel rule cannot apply without a separate violation it's really not all that different than th the continuing violation rule it's kind of a different way of articulating a very similar concept and so in order for there to be a separate a cruel scotiabank had to do something in two thousand and fifteen that violated wrestler not or not do something but since it's undisputed that the real legacy policy lapsed after it wasn't paid in two thousand and fourteen which is and the district court assumed that even if that had been scotiabank fault although there's absolutely no longer had any relationship with this insured i'm not my question was not whether prevails on separate my question was whether you agree that it's applicable here changed but i don't recall that in your brief you addressed the separate and it came up in my brief that's correct plaintiffs so i trying to figure out here is where there may be some kind of rulin in the positions of the parties at least in terms of how we analyze that is correct your honor and i don't think it changes the analysis at all i agree that it is the  only legal basis left to the plaintiff to try and find an argument that would salvage this case you know but what are you talking about i'm talking about the separate across argument which and again in order for that to apply you still have to have some affirmative evidence from the plaintiff that something happened in two thousand and fifteen that was a violation of either the mortgage or notice from real legacy or mr evan or anybody else i mean again the banks and i disagree with the district courts even entertaining and assumption that the bank may have committed the rest violation  fourteen because there's absolutely no evidence to support that the assumption that because the bank paid a renewal premium in two thousand and thirteen and mr edgar claims that he had nothing to do with that doesn't prove anything all that proves notice they had not received the notice they had nothing to pay and they were asking their borrower which is the person with whom they have the contractual relationship we haven't and they're telling him we don't have your renewal notice and they're giving him all and if that is the case you know i'd like to know why past experience is necessarily insufficient to prove you're as payments become  for such taxes insurance premiums and other charges in a timely manner as such payments become due and so one has to interpret what does when does a payment become due and i do not believe that this means that when the insurance expires and the renewal is due but the payment is due payment cannot be doing till there is an invoice because the bank needs to know how much to pay and so the question and so clearly the bank has an obligation to do something when the time comes or i'm sorry not an obligation an option to do something if they don't get an invoice there's no payment that's due so they can't pay it they don't even know how much because you can assume that the amounts going to be the same or even to the same carrier they don't have an option to actually do anything at that point banks are not required to purchase th place insurance they do it because they want to protect their collateral but they're not years and even when i need a payment from them which is not from escrow to pay a property tax or do something i need to send them an invoice banks in my experience do not write checks to anybody for anything without an invoice so we should focus on your experience or your position i gather is not when it comes to payments and i would say st of all i take your point your honor and i was simply trying to answer your question and agree with you that particular when it comes from dispersing friends from escrow  banks need invoices to do that same thing with property taxes that they have to pay them when they get the tax bill this past experience theory i hate to be essentially even though mr cool you know me has not characterize question is that in any event that's just not enough that's just even if we could say that somehow this becomes circumstantial evidence it's not enough to carry i would give i would answer you in a couple of ways that number one yes i agree with your initial statement but number two i would argue that the circumstantial evidence does not support that conclusion because of the notices to banks and the banks affidavit and the fact that they went to the proper mailing address all of that evidence which is in the record and is unrebutted shows evidence that the bank did not in fact receive a notice as they had in the past because in the past they didn't send such letters why would the bank with sufficient funds in escrow fail to pay a premium unless they didn't get it and so the circumstantial evidence simply does not support mr abner's position and then i would also say that the statute doesn't because it is absolutely correct as judge swartz pointed out we're talking about escrow funds and payments are made when they're due and a payment is not due until there's an invoice and a due date and so just because the renewal of the policy was due that didn't make a particular payment due because we didn't have an invoice or an amount and again you cannot infer that there must have been one because there was in the past when scotiabank sent letters saying we didn't get it which they had never done in the past so why would they do that the only other inference that makes any sense is that for whatever reason real legacy failed to send the employers and i would point to the fact that mr ebner made no effort to prove otherwise tends to show that that's because he couldn't in other words you must infer from his failure to even attempt to present an affidavit or a copy of a notice or with picking up on your your line of questioning with respect to past practice and circumstantial evidence of over seats the issue is whether a reasonable jury could find that scotiabank knew that the payment was due and didn't make a timely payment notices for the years two thousand and twelve and two thousand and thirteen you can infer they got them because they did renew it or you can in the alternative infer that they didn't need them to renew  they did not produce notices for that time period and what changed in two thousand and fourteen the only thing that changed is they did make the payment and scotiabank argue we had no reason not to make the payment exciter a however the