filed motions with the federal district court insisting on their contract with rights under the policy and then they have used those rights dragging this claim out for four years not the last of the claim there was a concord claim that all times and they didn't give it now i saw them help me with my timing i know you still would like to you live your chance to celebrate new year's eve and for how long before then between the time they made their first request for payment first request after the statute and that new year's eve deadline the chronology is that in mid two thousand before the statute came became effective but everyone knew about it it was common knowledge that's when the arness the standard all state was mid two thousand and thirty one fast you know it was passed but it did not become legally effective in to the beginning of the next year i said ok but all everyone knew it was coming and allstate for five months said they couldn't find the file this made the arness is a little uneasy they then retained counsel then another year goes by and the first thing we did was send a letter to all states saying if you'd like to resolve this on a claim basis we're going to syria and there was no i'm not saying they weren't planning to that's what we do but we gave them the opportunity to come on inspect again they'd already inspected the house in ninety five so technically they should have known everything they needed to know we invited them back and if you'd like to adjust we can do it and you can resolve this claim and there will be no lawsuit and i will say goodbye to each other on a peaceful basis i never ruled on that now the summary judgment papers indicate that allstate took the position that the district court had couldn't rule on it because it wasn't in your operative pleading correct so a lot of time is spent in the briefs talking about this that is it is a what's your view as to whether the district court ever decided this this point as to whether there was but i think in the ground you know since you need to look at the record and there isn't one that's a i'm sorry i just will refine my question yes there's a final judgment which you obviously i mean there obviously is a reason for you to be here and argue this point but i've been trying to get at is whether the district court ever decided this issue and other in other words there's a final judgment but but there doesn't appear to be a decision which i couldn't find a decision from the district court that explicitly says the conduct of all state post the the enabling statute is or is not that i thin argued the merits and what they did wrong in two thousand that i don't understand from your perspective how we could even reach them maybe you can't but i think you can because it seems like the court was acutely aware of what was going on in two thousand having ordered the appraisal this way what do does allstate have as a result of the new statute that repeals or gives us a new statute limitations that they have is there anything suit again i would only response to that are you after that you don't have a new duty you have the same old lady they had back in ninety four it's been revived that's the definition of revival and to say that a contract of insurance does not impose legal duties or just return  entire body of case law and the purpose of the statute and if you read it it doesn't just revive lost its claims or causes of action so the claim was revived and the best evidence of that is the fact that allstate jumped into the claim and exercised its claim rights and demanded inspections of the property on repeated occasions it demanded an appraisal percent of the policy you can only do that if you have a claim of an in home with the total elapsed time between the time you made your first sort of revived claim yes and the final settlement in the mid two thousand to two thousand and four so it's just under four years which seems to me on its face quite unreasonable amount of time to tell someone how much it costs to fix a house and there's not nothing now before us that challenging the amount of the ultimate settlement we're now just in the van to question now it wasn't a settlement though it was an award and this has been reduced to judgement thank you for  and they're also late many additional damage they described that are less clearly pinned down in time but if you focus solely on those that they didn't see right after the earthquake it's also his position that that damage was predictable thinking troll in case law the court doesn't need to go that far and find the damage was in fact appreciable you don't need to find because we're limited here to the bad issue of whether there was a reasonable question as to whether that damage was appreciable controlling law as a potential ally my case which equates predictable with something that a reasonable person would think is more than normal wear and tear such that they're on notice there's a tension covered loss and i think clearly understand that they briefed it but it's just i'm only speaking for myself here but i'm i see there's there's no ruling on permission to file the amended complaint there's no explicit discussion by the court of the events in two thousand so the fact that it was briefed doesn't really to me necessarily suggest that the district court actually decided it and so on page seven fifty two beginning in line sixteen it states it is clear that the arnason all states are in gauged in a longstanding dispute over an appropriate estimate of the damages suffered during the northridge earthquake while the parties disagree about how there is in there you don't have a like excerpt with regard to the bad faith claim for what there's not an excerpt relating to the bad faith claim that deals with the post two thousand conduct that history was silent about that and i understand i take your point that the fact that the court is discussing the punitive damages in the big picture context of the case helps your argument but if you know punitive damages without the bad faith claim and there's and there's no discussion of the bad fa post post two thousand i would suggest this is a way to resolve the procedural issue if the court of issued a one line order saying motion granted this case and all the overview so i don't think that it is important whether or why the court analyzed the bad thinking she the way it did because the court this court has in front of the evidence is required to do it in not conceding the merits practice each really you'd have no objection if we do that procedurally i don't i want to point out that the arguments regarding appraisal but have been made in the papers on appeal were not made to allow a connection to the summary judgment motion as if there had been such a ruling it's not a whole record i mean the facts that underpin the bad faith clean and punitive damages claim as to the two thousand fans those two thousand events were not fully developed in the district court thousand and three the same date on which the plaintiff's opposition papers in the summer to her motion with file as of that point the appraisal motion or even file and in fact are even ruled upon  and issues that were raised by plaintiffs in this case with regard to whether there should be a arbitrary deadline put in appraisal etc had already been ruled upon by the court and even in the proposed second  opposition and the second minute like were filed after the appraisal had already been you can order plaintiffs made the decision in their opposition to take one tack with regard to attacking all states post two thousand conduct and that was just to look at  just to say two thousand through two thousand and three there must be a delay in there somewhere but all state has done is to set forth very clearly an undisputed timeline as judge fletcher observed there was no issue with regard to three forty one viking anything until january one two thousand and one allstate was first permitted not a property for inspection in august two thousand and one it was determined in the fall that there were geo technical issues need to be looked at because it was descending slow behind the artists house there's a question about whether cracks in the flat work or the back yard were caused by soil conditions or by the earthquake austin attain that a second inspection for the geotechnical engineer in december two thousand and one received the geotechnical engineer report january ninth two thousand and two immediately transmitted it to the structural engineer who was the one who said he needed that to finish his report got the structural engineers report in april two thousand and two it arranged the final inspection of the property law states contractor wanted to go back with the benefit of these reports and hand finished his job he did that on may twenty seventh two allstate relied on both its experts and plaintiffs experts in trying to figure out what the appropriate amount to offer at the time was and i would point the court to accept the record page five seventy six which is plaintiff's response to all states separate statement of repairs that's at page four seventeen four twenty two because that was in the plaintiff's expert's opinion that there was stucco damage similarly with regard to foundation all this expert says all the foundation repairs have been done already by the ma related repairs that's page three zero three but all state allows the money to fix it cracks in the foundation that's page four seventeen with regard to groeschel at allstate souls engineer labs probably due to that downward creeping soil phenomena that's page two ninety three but allstate paid to fully replace the cross last despite the fact that there's a real causation question about what caused that crack causation question i don't know if it's exacerbated by the passage of time it gets a lot harder after time there are similar issues with regard to repairing the fireplace and bathroom marvel so it's not a case where all  that a reasonable reliance on expert opinion is enough to create a genuine dispute about the amount the we think that's the undisputed facts show here comes in about a hundred thousand dollars over that one hundred ninety seven thousand dollars i think wrapping it up what we end up having these two parties that finally agree on something that this is probably before you do know about this judge vogel pointed out though the appraisal never really was included so my clients are being robbed of their argument to the appraisal that faith the reason i'm not up in arms about that is because the damages that flow from that are largely mildred by the larger raise award in other words i can't come in and say there was a biased appraiser on that panel and that's why the they have worked with fellow it so i have not tending to to make a big deal out of the other element of damages that did result from their unreasonable appraisal conduct is excessive delay for six months they weren't even a point their appraiser which is something that should be done in a day then they won't agree to a deadline for the completion which frankly is routinely ordered by district judges that they always think get this done by  mentions i've never seen it happen before the more common scenario is for something right in the middle or at one of the parties numbers this was unusual and i think it shows how unreasonable all states numbers were they were telling you that they conceded all these points