the answer is yes the change applies retroactively for three reasons st under a black letter kansas law changes to the remedies available to force a right apply retroactively by default under the core principle that a plane ticket who has not proven liability has no message right in any particular remedy over another remedy second the kansas legislature could have exempted this change from its default started life or minds class counterparts represented by the same helpful kansas law is clear that i'm going to interrupt you i think it's clear as mud recover because it allowed the defendant to offset the plaintiff's insurance proceeds and the course squarely said that change is remedial because it doesn't go to the underlying right or wrong it effects the remedies and procedure at stake eleven the clear the earlier kansas decisions used to intertwine the analysis of remedial and substantive with visit write in due process so what you have underlying those cases is a court looking at the want the cases you keep ignoring are the two court of appeals decisions from kansas and under stickley when we're doing in erie gas we have to give those the amendment did not apply to a case like this one that was pending before april th two thousand and thirteen and that's a quote those cases weight is the question of whether it changes to remedy is applied retroactively what you have here though your honor is the only cases that address the precise question at issue here where lee thought this was a i would have an argument that i have a vested rights due process problem there and that's because the property and his estate for the defendant is the defendant at issue and that type of intent is different under kansas law can because it change it women it is the only remedy is stake here if all the money remedy money damages available are completely taken away then they have a strong argument that brennan is on a horse and even though the change is remedial it  real or procedural in both cases the change alternately bars the remedy altogether the plaintiff has no damages at all when he otherwise couldn't recover and when the kansas court said it the plaintiff had an opportunity to it lay in just a few months less than six months was sufficient to say that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing an amendment because there was no good cause for that delay we have no dispute that had they sought your men immediately upon remembering the supreme court or any time soon thereafter this would be a completely different question and i can't imagine why the court would not have granted leave under that circumstance but the fact is they had an entire year and a half on the case was pending before the trial court  kansas and let them tell us your honor you answer you shouldn't certify this question for a few reasons this case has been pending for fifteen years nobody's requested certification and this just does not present one of the exceptional circumstances in which kansas law does not provide a clear and defined path for you to follow can this law tell you that in changing the remedy ok you don't need to go through all your arguments again ok thank you your honor based on the is what are you ready to answer now to discovery and i am i wrong about that are you are you able to answer that question i'm not talking about why you preferred remedy a to remedy be i'm asking why you evidence or his dinner one of the both a lot more money right i mean full consideration is every dime you paying made as opposed to just the difference between what it should have been charged and what was charged plus you get to travel it there's a huge difference in the amount of damage it's yeah but that's the point the point you can pursue that they do abandon one alternative so that you wouldn't be subject to discovery and if you pursued that claim now you would be saying yes you can conduct this discovery even though it's been eight years i don't know how hard it is to get the evidence now but you didn't want to submit nobody but you didn't want to submit to discovery that would be relevant only to trouble dams so you said we're not pursuing that cl damages and you did that knowingly and intelligent really knowing what you doing because it prevented discovery that you did not