where the all the court engaged in same type of analysis that the truck or that in this case but when you read the supreme court decision immigration they spent two pages of their opinion talking about the premium that they pay for these coverages was for three of the policies which for seven dollars and some science in gray share the premium was twenty dollars little bit over twenty dollars although it's n when you are making a claim for under insured motorists coverage under multiple policies the insurance companies and pilots you set off against under insured coverage on each policy the amount he'd buy th mr monocle good morning violate public policy and that's what the court found the trial court found that the state farm violated public policy when they overreached charging too much for too little essentially what they did was they charge five premiums for hovering that they could never receive now your honor brought up a point about they didn't get very much for what they asked for what they paid for that is absolutely right but more one common one policy outlining explaining what that means that when they then tried you they charge you for each premium for these things for because you know under insured motors coverage it's overreaching it's going of be on what they're entitled to do for they can't just charge whatever they want further much as they want that's just not the way it works in public policy in the courts are here to enforce and that's what we say in what the response the reply is well that motion the court made the same rule and that's what was at issue they want the court wanted to know and this is a factual distinction about what is the insured receiving from the insurer and that's why the court asked for this additional information and they never got and never got it and they never provided it and that's why we were left with providing an illustration of what this of what it was it's not meant to say this is exactly what it was and  point if you have any other question about that i would like to move on to the ambiguity i believe this contract is in this contract is in the u s and this court can rule in favor of the plane answer is if they find that this conflict is ambiguous and i believe that this contract is more similar to the peak in case in the johnson case where you have these policies being issued and there are five policies five that ages it's in the u s in just to show how it was and how difficult it is to maneuver and get through these contracts in their own brief state farm misapplies the contract there can be no more bigger proof that state farm in responding to an important call it argument miss applies their own country that i mean that is what happens now in terms of the settled on the set of this matter the two cases that they sign just that they cite george jones and us those two cases are wholly distinguishable from what happened in this case and every other case where there was found to be an ambiguity or a public policy violation where the contract was then stacked in jones pinus there was no issue it was a contract stack not because of any of beauty or because of violation of public policy and the pious they stack because those two things wholly separate people you have a driver borrowed a car who got an accident and was severely in family was really injured they have the driver of the car's policy and they add the person who they've borrowed the car from policy those are two separate policies tonight i think johnson's two hundred thousand dollars in the south against the torpedo to mount which led to one hundred fifty thousand dollars if the law was as such as the state farm posits in those cases they would have gotten nothing as well and either a king or johnson and that's just not a case you have to do in this case when it's ambiguous or it violates public policy the set off is against the whole because the all other limiting language is monday i don't believe they reset stands for the proposition that insurance company in charge of anything they want for duplicate of congress simply because they're allowed to have outlines that you can have anti stacking provisions amongst single policy where you have one policy that has five are if all five cars run on one policy it makes sense that there would be no ambiguity or that you can provide an entire stack in because it's clear it's in one policy but the statute about limiting in the last sentence talk about amongst one policy and in this case we have five separate policies five wholly separate distinct policies in today's day and age to think that state farm and not issue one policy or one common foreign policy for each individual with the contract if you go step by step of the contract is that as states on tried to do as you go through their contract you you go to the declaration page when you go to the declaration page your five declaration ages so now what are you left to do you look to the left look at all the that reason that you're paying for on paying for this one this one this one so i one hundred one hundred one hundred one hundred i five hundred thousand dollars in insurance company and then you then have to go to limiting instructions and then the arguments and of five members of four of those arguments because those are honest each one of those arguments has been rejected by the supreme court the supreme court has helped that when you charge the same exact premium exactly the way you look at it reshaped opinion you're going to see that the reason why they said it was ok is because nine family members were occupants of those other cars were entitled courage or occupying their car they were injured would also be paid more money for the the insured and the relatives they paid additional coverage for the need insured relatives on each one of those policies when they already coverage for most people and they're not getting more coverage isn't that right no i according to the supreme court results are pearse's you for one forty three and one or three days to have to be read in every material you have to be read together and in in one forty three eighty two