only allowed i'm sorry the information that led to the fifty sixty situation have been found out during the discovery p well your honor it's a good question pm a representative cordon council that all that recently needed to see was in this synch system which is basically a summary love log notes and we should look at the sinc there would be enough they also said a couple times along the way to the court and counsel that all the entire claims files and sessions later proven to be false also p m a also indicated that it would be too burdensome to disclose that there came a time when to testify early on as to exactly how things were structured what documents there were where they were you just accepted what the other side was saying but you could have had a deposition early on of somebody who is responsible for all these documents and figured out exactly what you needed from based on that you did it later but after after the document discovery was closed or the non deposition discovery was closed and then then you complain but that that that last step is ition which is the basis of your argument now could have been done at the outset i understood your honor that that being said if if if you look at the record there were a series of orders by the magistrate which left the door open to for to further documentary demands and it wasn't until i believe even door open with some skepticism but ok let understood acknowledge but but they did leave the judge did leave the door open it wasn't till i believe the april fifteenth two thousand and fifteen order where the judge said that's it i'm closing the door no more no more demands for documents and we did a timely appeal that so i get p m a represented that the synch blog not to be complete they were not there would also too burdensome to produce which turned out would be not did get five cases and not just a random five cases but the five biggest claims can you tell us briefly in summary what you found in the complete documents of those five cases that indicates that and an inquiry into the other hundred sixty four cases would y great returns if if you similarly had access to the underlying documents there so in response you and i believe the boyden the gallo and especially the hayes cases all counsel found some mismanagement by p m a especially the there was a potential problem here but it never eventually it is there anything that and so that that indicates that you should be looking for mismanagement and and serious recalculation of the damages in all of those cases or you identify one of the five cases where there is some clear evidence that the as to those cases the calculation of the premium would be different well your honor i guess if you don't mind i'll pivot to a different issue which was my do mind i'd like to know first you can fit it all you like after you answer the question because of course any kind of question could be missed the answer could be misleading because there needs to be more but i'd like to know what is the showing because the issue here is whether the calculation of the premium was wrong and if there anything that you found in those five cases that indicated that the contribution to the premium calculation of those  was miscalculated i would like to know your honor i believe it's those three cases that i mention but boy ok so you say there are three can't tell me what in those three cases demonstrates that the premium was wrongly calculated well your hon not contain any of the actual damage documents on they just had basically f it was for p m a personnel summarizing what was in their files were actually attaching the documents supporting their calculations and another another significant point  in discovery was uncovered the p m a basically paid itself twice they paid themselves a one point one or ten percent loss conversion and claims are tripping adjusted then they paid themselves another fee called an allocated loss adjustment expense that's what they not the finder ship there's an ambiguity should be resolved against the part of the draft of the document and when asked if there is any objective basis for calculating these fees michelle responded said not that i'm aware there's no documents explaining how these are calculated so for instance to be clear this argument that you're now making is not dependent on the discovery this is this is an argument that you are making based on the summary judgment record as it stood it's actually a mix of both  question you could have asked for these the positions of this moriarty vis schumer mr otto much earlier secor that's correct that's correct although again the court left the door open on number of occasions with respect to further documentary discovery it wasn't till the  honour's that in the in the beginning we were we were working with recess and the judge to work out our discovery disputes if you read the record of the conferences with the judge was celie agreed to look at situ first and then four months later we came back before the judge and the result recently is counsel said ok just show me the five big so we give them the five big files we give them a thousand almost a thousand documents then they make a motion to compel five months later and at that time we we this case there were no depositions conducted from march of two thousand and thirteen until june of two thousand and fifteen after the discovery da there was nothing that occurred between april fourteenth two thousand and fourteen and april of two thousand and fifteen other than they wanted some additional attorney documents and communications so a year goes by so they're sitting on their hands they're not doing depositions they're not telling us and the judge urged them and they agreed initially they agreed that they would give us specific requests please give us look at synch and then give them some give us some specific requests with respect to the documents that they actually me so nothing happens so we moved for summary judgment which prompted them to ask for an extension of the discovery deadline yet a fourth time and the judge said wait a minute we need to get to trial in this case it's an old case i'm not going to let you do any more document discovery you had two years to do it you've done you've not done what you promised you would do you've not provided a specific requests you've not provided for two years you haven't provided a specific request based on search and since she has an extensive amount of information you can see it in the record so at this point the judge says ok do depositions but he also said at a hearing page eight twenty two sixty seven of the record he also said in the june hearing he said look if something comes out of these depositions if something happens where they talk about documents that you specifically need please give me a specific request they didn't give us a specific request they claim that they just like they've never given us a specific request and then they claim oh well we need all these documents they sat on their hands for two years the judge had to move defined this court in federal insurance versus zurich a two thousand and eleven case has confronted the a l a p definition it's not defined in any case any insurance policies and certainly wasn't in defining the search policy and the court gave it its plain meaning and it's very simple the calculation was losses which include a l e which  specifically pointed out in the plan selection for which resell the site and then you multiply it times what we call general losses which would include overhead really that sort of thing and we multiply that times ten percent so fast forward judge sanest writes a very detailed thorough decision it's been since two thousand and ten your honour's since we've been paid a dime on this case we've been paying claims we've been incurring expenses judge santa says decision