Alfred Kwinter is the founding partner of Singer Kwinter. He speaks in this video about his firm’s expertise and handling property loss claims. He also discusses the importance of public adjusters and provides tips for clients facing major fire loss or property claims. Kwinter has extensive trial experience in this area and has helped change the law regarding property loss in Canada.
To view full transcript, please click here
Raluca: [00:00:13] Hello. I'm Raluca Urlea. Welcome to Lexpert TV. Today, I'm joined by Alfred Kwinter, founding partner of Singer Kwinter. Alfred will be speaking to us about his firm's expertise, specifically in handling property loss claims. Alfred, welcome and thank you for joining us.
Alfred: [00:00:34] Well, thank you very much. It's a real pleasure to be here. I've looked forward to this for some time and I'm finally here.
Raluca: [00:00:41] You are very welcome. My first question is why choose Singer Kwinter for your property loss claims?
Alfred: [00:00:49] Okay, well, the best answer I can give is not. Not a lot of lawyers specialize in this area. We do. We've developed an expertise in property loss. We know how insurance companies think when it comes to these claims. We know how they defend these claims. We know what's important and what's not important. We know what what steps our clients have to take. And we have, through our expertise, developed a line of cases that is well known in the insurance industry. So insurance companies know who we are. And if you want your claim handled, obviously you want a claim handled by experts in the field and we consider ourselves experts in the property loss field having, as I say, established a reputation in that area with the case law. Given that, how few cases get to trial and most lawyers will tell you about 95 to 98% of cases don't get to trial. They do resolve at some point. It's important to resolve these cases to the advantage of the policyholder. And I think when the insurance company sees our name on a claim or from correspondence, I like to think that our clients get better treatment or different treatment. And I've seen that in the past where lawyers have referred matters to us and where the lawyer can't get anywhere when the file comes to our firm. There seems to be a change in reaction or a change in the position of an insurance company. I'm not suggesting that they shiver in their boots when they see Singer Kwinter, but they certainly know us. And there's good reason for them to know us because we've been out there for a long time. Our firm has gone for close to 50 years and we've had some pretty, pretty amazing results in that time period.
Raluca: [00:02:37] Can you give us some more information about your extensive trial experience in this area?
Alfred: [00:02:42] Yeah, we have established a record of obtaining punitive damage awards against insurance companies. Now, many people don't know what punitive damage awards are. So let me explain that. They actually mean exactly what the word says, punitive, which is punishment. The punitive damage award doesn't compensate the plaintiff the way other claims for damages do. Usually you get compensated for your losses and what have you lost. And the courts tried to put somebody back in the position that they were in by way of dollars and cents. That's all they can do, no matter what the loss is physical, personal property loss. But if an insurance company deals with people in the high handed, outrageous, very, shall we say, reprehensible manner, the courts are allowed to punish the insurance company. These are not compensation damages. These are punishment damages, almost like the criminal court might might give out. And it is extremely difficult to get punitive damages in Canada, in the United States, they seem to give them all over the place. And it's well known if some of the crazy awards that have come out of the United States for punitive damages in Canada, it's a very hard area where to get an award. Our firm has over the years managed to get a punitive damage award against an insurance company on four separate occasions, for I myself were responsible for three of those trials. One of my former associates did the fourth one. That is unheard of in this country. As far as I know. I believe we're the only firm in Canada to have obtained that result. So in those cases are well known. I think you'll find some of them in every insurance law school book or every insurance text in Canada. I think every law student who takes insurance law will have read about Singer Kwinter cases. And I think the insurance company and I know the insurance company knows all about those cases, and I think they think twice before taking us into a courtroom, because none of those awards would have happened if the insurance company had settled with us. I'm not out there to make records for punitive damage awards. These all happened following a trial where we were going after our clients rightful claims under a policy, and that's all we were looking for. We, of course, we're asking for punitive damages because we claim that the insurance companies have treated our clients very unfairly. Interesting to note is that much of the evidence that led to the punitive damage awards came out during the trial. Where we found things in the course of the trial, looking at notes of people giving evidence that weren't revealed to us earlier that really shock the jury. These were basically jury cases, most of them. And jurors are shocked with the way insurance companies treat people and judges, not so much because judges see this regularly and judges will say to me, oh, come on, Mr. Kwinter, it's an insurance company. Being an insurance company, what do you expect? Because they become immune to this kind of conduct. Jurors do not. I emphasize to a jury that you buy insurance so you can sleep well at night. You buy insurance for security and you buy insurance for peace of mind. And when an insurance company does what some of these companies have done, you can almost hear the gasps coming from the jury when they see some of this conduct being being displayed. And they punish and they punish very, very harshly. One of our awards was the highest award in Canada against an insurance company, and it was reversed or sent back for a new trial because of the judge's errors and directing the jury. And it was eventually settled for a lot of money, but not quite as much as the award. But jurors are shocked when they hear this this kind of evidence. So I think insurance companies are now learning that it may be better to settle some of these cases, which they do usually. I called it their get out of jail free card because they can always avoid the courtroom if they want to, and they could have in these cases. And as I've always said, and I continue to say, if insurance companies paid everybody what they were entitled to under their policy, I would have spent the last 48 years doing divorces, maybe wills, possibly real estate, maybe corporate law. But I haven't I've spent most of that time going after insurance companies for people who have had major losses. So I think that talks about our experience and property loss cases. We know how to we basically know how to conduct a property loss trial. We know what's important, what isn't important. We know the we know the steps insurance companies take to defend these cases. We know we know. We speak their language in that way. We know the maneuvers. We know how they go about things. We know how often there are numerous adjusters on the file. We know how important those notes are that they keep internal notes that we get production of. So our trial experience is extremely important and and it has reflected itself, as I say. And so very major judgments. I think we hold also the highest award of a judgment ever upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Plester vs Wawanesa decision where we got $350,000 punitive damages, and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The famous Winston case, where the jury awarded $1,000,000, was reduced to 100,000 by the Interior Court of Appeal, but restored at the Supreme Court of Canada. Our $350,000 award was upheld by the Court of Appeal. So as far as the Court of Appeal goes, I still think that is the highest award that's been upheld. It was quite a number of years ago. So that is basically why I think our trial experience matters a great deal to people when they want to retain us. We tell most, we tell people you will likely will not go to trial. It's important for people to know that they probably won't go to trial because these cases resolved. But they do know that if if we do go to trial, you're going to be well represented from a firm with a long history of experience in these areas.
Raluca: [00:09:49] So you've talked about your expertise in some of your major wins. Can you tell me how you've changed the law regarding property loss in Canada?
Alfred: [00:09:56] Well, in some of our cases, the court has asked the jury if they want punitive damages to list the reasons why they are giving punitive damages to the plaintiff, why they're punishing the insurance company. And some of the reasons given by the jury point out what constitutes a ground for awarding punitive damages. It's important to understand that based on the law, an insurance company owes its policyholder a duty of good faith. What that means, essentially, is an insurance company can't put its own interests ahead of those of its policyholders. Anything it does, any steps it takes, it has to be in the interests of the policyholder, not in its own interests. That, of course, surprises a lot of insurance companies. But that's what the law is based on, a very important case that came out a number of years ago. We have through what the juries have found to be conduct deserving of punitive damages pointed out certain types of conduct which constitute a breach of the duty of good faith. In other words, delays in reporting why a claim is denied, not telling people why a claim is denied. One well known case we had, they the people waited like eight, six or eight months to hear from the insurance company, and they finally sent a three line letter. The investigation of your claim has been completed. We wish to advise you that the claim is denied. Trusting that our position is clear. It was those three sentences that basically that constituted the denial. And the funny thing is trusting our position is clear. Having not told them a single word about why the denial, I had that letter blown up the poster size. As any good plaintiff lawyer would do and put it in front of the jury. And the jury found that that letter was one of the grounds for awarding punitive damages. Different types of conduct that the insurance companies have engaged in have been grounds for awarding punitive damages, which people might not otherwise realize, but juries are shocked by it. Another very important area of law where we've made new law is in a criminal case if somebody is charged with a crime. You can call character evidence from people in the community to give evidence as to that person's reputation. To say I know this person and his reputation or her reputation in the community is such that, in other words, it's most unlikely that a person with this kind of reputation would have committed a crime. That's okay in criminal cases, and that's very often done in criminal cases. It has never been done in civil cases until we changed the law in one of our cases. I advance the argument that if my client is charged in a civil case with criminal conduct, for example, we're not paying you because we think your client set the fire himself or herself arson or we're not paying because we think your client fabricated a lot of this information as to what was in the property that we don't think existed, i.e. fraud. If there's any allegation that my client committed any kind of criminal activity, I am now allowed to call character evidence just the way I could in a criminal case to show that based on my client's reputation in the community, there's no way or it's most unlikely that he or she committed fraud or arson or any other criminal activity that is new law that was never allowed until we change the law in that area. We also, as I said, set new new limits for punitive damages. But again, that was sent back for for new trial. But I think most importantly, we've outlined in our cases that a an insurance company can be held liable for punitive damages. And one of our cases, the insurance company was a repeat offender. We've got punitive damages against the second and the insurance company for the second time. And that's important because we're fighting this specific company repeatedly. And one of the reasons the Supreme Court of Canada has given for punitive damages is deterrence, just like a sentence in a criminal case, you want to deter this company and other companies from behaving in the same manner. So we're imposing this punitive award. Now, one of the problems, of course, with punitive damages, one of the practical problems of punitive damages against an insurance company is that no matter how high the court awards in Canada, whether you're dealing with a giant defendant of unlimited means like an insurance company does, any award of punitive damages really punish? That's the problem. Even if you get a half a million or even $1,000,000 award against an insurance company. At the end of the day, it's pocket change, if you want to call it that. And I've written about this in articles. To them, it's the cost of doing business. It's like the speeding ticket you get on the highway. Oh, well, it's it's part of the cost of driving. And, you know, Justice Luskin, now retired in the Court of Appeal in the Whitten case, made a great comment. He said punitive damages must sting. Sting How do you make damages against an insurance company? Sting When the Supreme Court of Canada in that same case said they still have to be moderate. How can they sting and be moderate? So the problem with punitive damages is no matter how much in Canada that's going to be awarded to the insurance company, it's never going to be a big deal. I think what is a big deal to insurance companies is the fact that they were accused or found having committed conduct, engaged in conduct that has resulted in a punitive damage award that gives them great concern. So in one of our cases where I did get a $100,000 punitive damage award against an insurance company, which wasn't a great deal of money for an insurance company, it really is pocket change. They appealed that and they said to me, we'll give you the $100,000, no problem. Just take the word punitive out of that award. And I said, I don't care if it's in there or not. We got the award. I can still say I got the punitive damage award. You want to take out the word punitive? Take it out. Give me a 100,000. And they did. So that's the battle we face. But the point is that no insurance company wants to be the subject of a punitive damage award. And and I think it is an incentive for them to settle with us when it comes to dealing with major property loss claims. So we have changed the law considerably and we take great pride in having done so. And I think it really shows the public that there are people out there that can make a difference for you.
Raluca: [00:17:44] That's great. Thank you. What's the importance of public adjusters? How do they help clients with their case?
Alfred: [00:17:51] Let me tell you at the outset what people ask. Well, what's a public adjuster? It's not a term that's known to many people. And I'll just give a couple of lines on that. Public adjusters are adjusters who work for the public, for the property owner, and they are usually adjusters who previously worked for the insurance industry. So they know the and I put this in quotes game and I just use that word only for the expression because it is no game. They know how insurance companies think and they know how insurance companies work, as do we. Of course, the public adjusters are licensed by the province. They have a license, they have to meet licensing requirements, and they basically represent policyholders in claims against the insurance company. So where do public adjusters come into this picture? Public adjusters are most helpful to policyholders at the very outset and beginning of the claim. If there's been a major loss, the public adjuster comes in, he or she knows exactly what information the insurance company needs, as do we. And we, of course, advise people this at the outset, but very often we will refer people to public adjusters or tell them they should get a public adjuster because public adjusters know how to present and prepare a claim and what the insurance company looks for and what can help and what can hurt. And they help negotiate the best settlement possible for the insured. They usually work on a percentage, which is, I think, very fair. We've managed in our claims to get their fees paid in a number of cases and in full, as a matter of fact. But the public adjusters. To assist policyholders sometimes going through a process called appraisal, which is a whole different area, but it's where the value of the claim is adjusted through using to two representatives, one from the insurance company, one for the policyholder, and they both appoint an umpire that basically takes the valuation process out of the court system and puts it into a different into a different form. But public adjusters can be very, very valuable in getting matters resolved at an early stage. That's why they are, in my opinion, they level the playing field. When an insurance company sends out an adjuster to a member of the public who has no clue, who's never had a claim before, doesn't know what to say, what not to say, doesn't know what's important, what's not important. It's not very fair. The public adjuster will level the playing field. Suddenly it's adjuster against adjuster. That's why, in my experience, many insurance companies don't like public adjusters. They make things too complicated for them, and I think they end up paying much more money when a public adjuster is involved for good reason and public adjuster works for the policyholder, the public adjuster makes sure that the proper amount is claimed and is being paid where a member of the public is lost. And one of the problems is the average person thinks the insurance company is his or her lifeboat or life a lifeline, which is what I always tell juries. And you're entitled to think that because that's why you bought insurance. But the problem is that when an insurance company has a major claim, they are inherently in a conflict of interest. They have to pay your claim if you if it's a proper claim, but they're also a profit organisation that has to report to shareholders. They're all public companies. So when a major insurance company gets a claim, they, the insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims. They make money by collecting premiums. That's why you're bombarded on the radio and on TV by insurance companies advertising for your business. They want your business. But when it comes to paying a claim, it's a different story. They will only maintain their profit margin if they can pay claims as low as possible and they try to do. I'm not suggesting that they're trying to cheat necessarily anyone, although sometimes it seems to approach that in some of our cases. But they look to get claims settled for as low an amount as they can. And this is where public adjusters come in to help them. Now, very often, as soon as the case hits a legal impediment, the legal barrier we are called in. We're very often called in by public adjusters, just like we tell people to go to public adjusters. Public adjusters then turn around and call us in, because there's a limitation period that's facing the policyholder where you have to start a claim within a certain period of time, or there's been a denial for certain reasons, and some of the denials are ridiculous. Quite frankly, when you see that on the basis of which some of these claims are denied, it's outrageous. Some are valid. And it's been held that an insurance company isn't liable for punitive damages just for denying a claim. Insurance companies are entitled to deny claims that they truly and honestly believe aren't valid. But that takes on some pretty preposterous dimension sometimes when you see on the basis of which some of these claims are denied. I once had a claim denied because my client's application said she lived at a townhouse, whereas the insurance company decided that it was a row house. So they deny the claim, if you can believe that. Another time, my client, an elderly lady, had a student living on the second floor because she was afraid that she ever fell and broke her hip. Who was alone? There'd be somebody in the house to call for help. Jones Company denied the claim because of a tendency. I mean, I could go on and after all these years, I can give you a long history of why claims are denied. But they have been denied for a lot of ridiculous reasons, sometimes valid reasons. But we are there to fight for people and public adjusters are there to help people. And I think people should be more aware of the reason why public adjusters are out there, how they help people and. Why insurance companies don't like them and insurance companies don't like them because they do help people get higher, higher settlements.
Raluca: [00:24:47] Utilizing public adjusters is a great tip. What other advice do you typically give clients facing a major fire loss or property claim?
Alfred: [00:24:56] One of the things people should do immediately when they have a large loss is take as many pictures as they can. You can never have too many pictures of the loss and the state of affairs. That's very, very important. Secondly, they should get advice early on. Insurance companies like to get statements from people quickly. And very often those statements can result in really hurting the policyholder by saying something that he or she may not intend to say or it could be misinterpreted. And suddenly you get a denial based on something a person said, and they say, That's not what I meant, but that's not what I said. So they should get advice very early on and getting legal advice early on. There's nothing wrong with that and or from a public adjuster because speaking to an insurance company, I talked earlier about an inherent conflict of interest. You think the insurance company is there to help you? And supposedly they are and hopefully they are. But the insurance company is also trying to settle that claim for as low an amount as they can. So you have to be very careful. I had one major claim where four or five different statements were taken from my client by four or five different adjusters for the same insurance company. And of course, just like in a criminal case and I've been a criminal lawyer for a number of years, the more statements a person gives, the more times you're going to get inconsistent facts in each of those statements. Because we're only human, we never remember anything 100% accurately. So small things might change. The more statements you take from someone, the more likely is that there are going to be inconsistencies in those statements. A person might see three days in one statement or four days or five days in another state. And depending on how far apart those statements are taken, there very rarely is a person given their earlier statement to read over before they're given a second statement. And I sometimes have a lot of trouble getting those statements from insurance companies. And then insurance companies very often have a right to examine someone under oath under their policies, and then they have statements taken voluntarily that they can examine, they can compare to an examination under oath, given under oath. Again, they can look for inconsistencies, which again, give a reason for denying a claim. So I think you have to remember that while the insurance company is supposed to be there to help you and they're supposed to be there to save you, and they're supposed to be your life raft. Very often that isn't unfortunately the case. And as I say, if it was, I would have been doing divorces or wills for all these years. And I have not, because insurance companies do not always treat people fairly. That's what's kept my firm so busy. So what I would. Another thing I would recommend to people who've had a major property claim when the insurance company comes in to assess the damage. Be with them if you can. They very often they look for pre-existing issues. They ask you how old certain things are. They ask you condition of certain things because they usually take the position that they're not responsible for things that existed before the loss. And if there's any way they can get out of covering something because it pre-existed the loss, they may well try to do so. So it's important to have as many pictures as you can of the property beforehand. So take as many pictures as you can of your property in its pre damaged condition, which is always a great idea. That's also if your contents take as many pictures as you can of your contents or get as many pictures together of your contents that you've taken at parties or events or dinners to show that you had these things. Because very often the insurance company will question whether a person had these things or not. The classic case I always refer to is I had a client who came from Iran and brought a huge amount of jewelry with her. The insurance company agreed to insure it if she listed it on her policy. They call it scheduling, where you pay a premium for every item that you're scheduling over and above your regular annual premium. This lady paid a very large premium for numerous years and the insurance company had no difficulty accepting that premium. She then had a break in in her home, and she lost all of that jewelry as soon as she made her claim. The insurance company demanded invoices, receipts, proof of purchase appraisals and basically said, prove that you owned it. And what it's worth, they had no difficulty collecting premiums over those years for those items, not caring where she got them, how much she paid for them when she bought them. No problem at all. But as soon as she had her loss, everything had to be proved. Now, is that fair? Not at all. So I always say to people, try to document photographs, especially with iPhones. It's so easy to just take pictures of everything as much as you can. And when it's time for the to make a claim, gather around as much information and documentation as you can. Another thing people should realize is most policies when it comes to property are replacement value, which means the cost to replace, the cost to build or to rebuild. And they should know that if you're going to build or rebuild and you want to get paid by the insurance company, the rebuilding costs you have to rebuild. If you want to cash out and not rebuild, you're going to only get a CV, which means actual cash value. That means depreciated value. That is a very large reduction in what you would otherwise get if you rebuilt the property. That is a very important factor for people to consider. You have to rebuild. Of course, people say, Well, where do I get the money to rebuild if I've just lost my property? Very often, insurance companies, once you start to rebuild. We'll start advancing money to allow you to rebuild when they don't. I tell the insurance companies, my client wants to rebuild. They don't have the money. If you don't advance the money to them, they're going to borrow it. They're going to borrow it at a significant rate of interest. And we're going to add that interest charge to your claim. So fess up your responsibility and give them the money so they can start rebuilding. And some insurance companies do and some insurance companies don't. And when they don't, they're going to be facing, as far as my firm is concerned, a very significant charge for the money our clients have to borrow when the insurance company could have provided that money so they could rebuild. This also applies to contents. This is a very important point to with contents if you want the replacement value of your contents. You need to replace them to get the replacement value. And this is tied in with another important otherwise. By the way, if you don't replace them again, you get ACV, which is a very when it comes to contents, it's a very reduced amount. It's almost what you'd get if you sold the goods at a garage sale, which is a very big difference from what you would get by replacing your contents. This leads to another very important document. At some point, the insurance company is going to ask you to fill out what's called a proof of loss. Proof of loss document. That is a document where you list everything that you have lost and what you're making a claim for. That's an extremely important document, number one, because it is a sworn declaration. Where it is sworn before commissioner votes and you are swearing under oath that this is what you had and this is what you lost. And this is what you're claiming for. When it comes to claiming for contents. It's not what you paid for the item. It's what it will cost to replace the item. How do you know what it's going to cost me to replace this? Well, most people don't have receipts for everything they purchased over the number of years. Who would have such a thing? Some people do. Some people keep files. But if you don't. Our advice always is. Thank God for the Internet. Go to the Internet and look up the item. Get a picture of it. And anything as close as you can find to the item you lost. What is the cost of replacement? Because it's replacement cost that the insurance company is responsible for when it comes to contents. Very often that could be much higher than what you paid for. In many cases, prices go up, but not always. In some cases, prices go down. I have a television set that I paid. I think over $3,000 for many years ago that I could buy at Costco now for probably $750. So not all prices go up. And so the replacement cost of that 3000 television is $750. It's not what I paid for it. It's what it will cost to replace. The most important thing people have to remember about a proof of loss. And this is why public adjusters are very good at this and helping people fill these out. If there's one false statement, intentionally false statement, any proof of loss, no matter how small, that can invalidate the entire claim. Everything the whole claim can go down the drain. If one false item is found. So it is extremely important or that if you're found to have made a statement not caring if it's true or not. You have to think carefully and you have to use your best efforts to determine the value of that item. No one is going to blame you if you do it in good faith and you might be wrong, but you've done your best to calculate the loss. But if you make what's called an intentionally false statement or a statement that you didn't care if it was right or not, you just made it. You could invalidate the entire claim property contents, everything. So that's like kicking the can out of the bottom of the stack at the at the supermarket. The entire stack comes down. And that's something people have to remember. And that's another area where public adjusters can be very, very useful to someone in assisting, preparing their claim.
Raluca: [00:36:24] Wrap up. What sets Singer Kwinter apart.
Alfred: [00:36:28] I think what sets us apart is. Experience. Results. And reputation. I think let me tell you that judges have referred cases to us. What greater compliment can you have then when a judge. I have a number of cases referred by defense lawyers who represent insurance companies when family members or good friends have had a loss. They are referred to me. What greater compliment? Can you have and when you're opposition people, you face off with every day or fighting all the time, send people to you. And that's one of the things that we have had happen. And it is a great compliment to us and it is a great recognition of what we've managed to accomplish. And it is with a lot of pride that I can say that my firm has, as I'd like to use, the term change, the landscape of litigation. And I should say that that not only in property law cases of which we have, of course, I think the great expertise. But in other cases as well, we hold the highest award in Canada for a chronic pain case. We change the law and trip and fall. Totally change the law. And Paul, with the famous case of Cayman versus Kawartha dairy and we change the law and life insurance. The Supreme Court of Canada with Oldfield versus Transamerica. All these cases are in all the law books. So I think. What sets us apart is a firm that has worked very, very hard for our clients, has gotten great results for our clients. Has. Change the law to help our clients. Has left an imprint on, as I say, on the landscape and has made it easier for people to take on corporate giants. One of the great satisfactions that I have, people ask me now, what's the biggest satisfaction you have in doing this kind of work? Assuming you have satisfaction in doing this kind of work and I say the great one of the great satisfactions for me is being able to represent someone a very limited means who can take a giant. Industry giant insurance company a multi with unlimited resources. And take them to court and get justice for my client because so many of our cases are on contingency. People can do that. And it allows us to enter a courtroom with someone who could never afford to take on a company like that. Getting great result for these people. And I'm suggesting that I can guarantee any result. No lawyer can. But we have so many occasions to obtain great results for people against corporate giants with unlimited means. Unlimited means. Because juries have seen how our clients are treated. Juries have seen what insurance companies can do. Juries have seen how people are treated. And they have been angered and outraged and decided to do something about it. As I've said to juries, I want the verdict to ring out not only in the courtroom, but across the country. So that this is part of my standard jury address, which has worked sometimes, is that when someone in Victoria or in Winnipeg or in Halifax wants to deny a claim, they can point to some of their cases and say, no, you can't do that because look at what happened to that person in London and look what happened to that company, rather, in London, or look at what happened to that company in St Catherine's or an offshore. We can't do that because the law is clear now and Kwinter made that law clear. Singer Kwinter has demonstrated to the insurance companies that this is what you can do and this is what you can't do. The regrettable thing is, in some ways maybe it is and maybe it isn't because my firm is still pretty busy is that no matter what happens, things appear to be going on at the same rate and insurance companies still treat people the way they basically have always treated people. And that's why we're always there to help them. And that's I think that's what sets us apart. I think record results and reputation and I'll say the three R's.
Raluca: [00:41:29] Thank you all for joining us today and sharing your insight and expertise.
Alfred: [00:41:34] Well, thank you very much. It's been a real pleasure. And I hope we've imparted some information to your watchers and listeners.
Raluca: [00:41:41] And thank you for watching Lexpert TV.