english court you want us to follow legislation that was enacted by parliament and and gives nothing in any of the supreme court cases that you cite or any other case that i know yes you are but it but the fact that the fact is that that is very now created by this legislation is so great that our systems should be aligned with their system if that will not slow down farmers in this day and age that's no longer the case look at us now you're in boston i'm in puerto rico are we're exchanging information in real time the chirps are ask able as  following the english in that sense i think i've worked feel we carefully in the record below and i can't find any indication that you ever were used in this argument in the district court the near unanimous consensus of our sister circuits used seem to be asking us to overturn that decision as it as a three judge panel will not really  even if you had of point on the position with respect out most would say there is still the warranty of truthful in this issue objection transfer over as a common law i mean others it's one thing to say what's the content of a common law rule like most good thing and you say well that should be informed by new developments including this new development which is the development of the change in english law of the at a statutory one ok but even if you won on that argument you'd still lose here unless you can overcome the warranty of truthfulness point  argument i'm not asking a fair question what is your argument about the effect of english law on the warranty of truthfulness contention which is a separate ground on which you could lose what you are on the con i'm saying is that argument isn't that just an argument that a common law rule as it is now it's against public policy and therefore can't be enforced among our argument is that it has been enacted every form in england and we should follow the lead it was in fact a matter of public policy because the law commission after sixty years of investigation found that it was extremely hard for them fair for  every player the insurance market market will trickle down in these waters because it is safe and it is sound policy on that but the policy for me in this case as as with virtually any policy form was approved was it not be insurance commissioner in puerto rico not really our mari four insurance is excluded from most of the chapters of the puerto rico insurance code as this court has recognized in many cases this case as part of my argument i will be addressing the following point number one this is more than a comedy case it is actually appellant mr morales reach their warranty of truthfulness containing their policy and finally number four the uphill judgment is based on determinations of f on credibility assessments made by the district court which are subject to clear error than the review now this is not overly complicated case but it is an important one and allow me to a and the leading jurisdiction that most handle has recognized doesn't make it so why would it make sense to continue to construe the common law the way it was developed a century ago in a very different world but what's the answer to that are we just stuck with it we can't change it or you're our federal courts don't actually further develop germ are a time low and this circuit actually did so by king two thousand mistaken it would be to do that given the insight that england which developed its come along rule to the again with a come up with so what is the argument as to why in that situation we should just put blinders on and not pay attention to it in now mr why isn't that what the two thousand and twelve in two thousand and fifteen act are they're just updated a century later based on that experience here is what it is now why wouldn't we just read it that way i guess i just not understanding what the what you mean maybe there's a reason not to do it but i guess the idea that just because it's in a statute the common law has to stay as it was will no one consider the arguments that are being pressed for developing a different of it is that it can change we can't reconstruct a statute make a new statute but you're going to hear it we're just developing common law if the common law rules out of date i thought that was the whole point of common law is that can be updated to account for new circumstances that's not anything unusual for court to do it's just if you may have to have a high threshold for it it might be unwise in a given circumstance but jurisprudential he or it doesn't seem outside to just roll to develop a new common law apprised the apparently was not apprised of the changes in progress in ing english law it was not your honor and none of the other circuits that we relied on a adopt the new poem or rule or the only reason we can't do it because we haven't done it before well the supreme court actually has council following decisions based on a british court decisions and there is no case particularly neither komarr nor stand the oil that has mandated a federal courts to blame the dot an act of parliament where the proposed new common law rule has been presented number one number two i'm also wondering whether there has been anything in the way of hearings before whatever the relevant congressional committee might be and i understand that i was just wondering whether here in the united states there has been any legislative proposal under consideration not that we are aware of your  as recognizes that the only way to reverse that judgment that this report is by this a little more accepting his invitation to disregard started the syces by overruling its own president set up in counseling in two thousand one change instead of the change in the english rule having been affected by a parliamentary statute it can't about because of the court decision  i'm sorry are there good argument for why the english approach is wrong you've made a story to say this argument you've made a separation of powers are but is there a substantive reason not to follow the english approach another would suppose there boat or taking the time to check all of the various representations in the in the affidavits here only because it can rely on traditional marine insurance one of mere comedy it is an argument outrageously based in the breach of the doctrine of separation of powers the united states supreme court has stated that the knowledge i think and we've got that we've heard the point of the argument thank you issued to underwrite it on there took the risk not based on the obligation that resulted in the issuance of the policy in this case but on the information on brickwork for another policy that related to another boat and  mention is without buoyancy thirty six minutes based on the information provided for another boat so there was absolutely no reliance on the application which we saw related to the policy at the two here