the lose the copyright date i think if you're going to sleep here to the reading the policy together you read the policy together there is language each one of those particular indorsements that say that they are superseding are different indorsement they are taking out the other indorsement so because you read the policy together like the court appointed all you have to which one of those two endorsements cancel out the other endorsement the general endorsement under insured motorists coverage it's titled under insured motorist covers coverage stache illinois it doesn't say it replaces or just places a particular provision in another indorsement under insured motorists limit does contain that limiting language and judge it has explicitly say that it replaces subparagraph a of the limit of liability provision in the general under insured motorists coverage and or spence and that seems to me to control the interpretation here you know i understand that but this is the general policy that says that a saree circumvention or takes out the policy we don't have that particular provision in this policy we have n l n y policy we have a particular category that says we take out this language in this endorsement it doesn't say we take it out of the eleanore endorsement that the other well that's the only under insured motorists coverage indorsement in the policy in other words the single under insured limits which refers to per accident can only be modifying under insured motorists coverage th because that's the only u i and coverage in the policy and then there's the declarations page which clearly indicates that the limit for you i am battling injury is five hundred thousand dollars each only reasonable way to read it is according to what it actually says what it says gold is that we're going to read all of these all of these things together and then at the bottom and i was trying to find that for the court but at the bottom of each it that coverage and that's why he liked it in an endorsement the scope of it is reflected in an endorsement but we clearly kept her accident limit in the single under insured motorists limit and doris meant which has to be given some meaning endorsements but the end the door switch around and i get i don't want to go around the circle but the endorsements themselves say that they both change the policy and it doesn't say this one changes this one changes it says they both change the policy and i understand the logic the court is saying this comes first the news from second this comes third but there's nothing in the record to suggest that it's not really a matter of order i mean they could mix up these pages and it wouldn't make terms of the interpretation it's what the language says in the language of the single you i am limit says her accident and it also says that paragraph a of a you i am indorsement is replaced by the following heart my argument is if there's only a five hundred thousand dollars policy and only everybody received two hundred less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars power under their two hundred fifty thousand dollars from the previous the underlying liability policy religious the morning in may please the court consul my name is mike rhesus and i'm here today and be half of the appellee harleysville insurance company the district court should be affirmed for two reasons first the policy and endorsements are clear and unambiguous the policy contains two endorsements relating to under insured motorists coverage in addition to what i think the sites refer to as the base policy provisions first we have a fourth page under insured motorists coverage indorsement that's identified of declarations as double four seven it has all of the parts of what the coverage provides and ensuring agreement element of liability section definitions exclusions along with other provisions others of second indorsement that's identified in the declarations as four zero two it's called a single under insured motorists limit endorsement it's only one limit of liability provision of the under insured motorists competent or so it goes on to state that the limit shown in the declarations for the coverage is the quote maximum limit of liability for all damages close quote because of to the limit of why the lady shown in the declarations it's five hundred thousand dollars for each accident and that's surprisingly consistent with that each accident limit the declarations also show uninsured i'm sorry insured motors coverage and bodily injury liability coverage also with the same each accident limit based on some miller single limit indorsements granted the parties may disagree about what the policy says but that disagreement doesn't make anything ambiguous about this provision the single limit is controlling because it and it alone replaced the limit of liability provision of the other indorsement and it incorporates the each accident limit shown on the declarations when the two endorsements are read together the single limit of five hundred thousand dollars for each accident in the declarations replaced the limit of liability section in the other endorsement and plaintiffs have offered no other alternative interpretation that reasonably shows any ambiguity about the each accident even determining whether there's an ambiguity presents for the court a question of law as your company draft these forms or is there some centralized place like yes judge on what we are using the forms the come out of the insurance services office and that refers that is at the bottom if you and i know that i'm some distance away from you but if you look at the bottom of the option doors it has what's called copyright insurance services off so we're using a standard industry form that comes out of one central location the insurance services office and the fact that the two indorsements have different copyright state copyright dates doesn't say anything about when there are effective you go to the declarations for the at the declarations are as much for the policy as anything else and they clearly say they're both affected from the beginning of the policy period all the court did here was read the declarations the policy parts together as written and require both endorsements are effective from the beginning of the policy period but the particular form was copyrighted at different times there is no other reasonable interpretation of the policy every recovered a total five hundred thousand dollars from the f l driver plaintiffs do not dispute that they could not recover further under the harleysville policy once the limit is judicially determined to be five hundred thousand dollars and even if they  didn't agree with it and i'm not sure if we heard that argument this morning if you just look at cincinnati vs world are discussed at pages twenty five and twenty seven of our brief that argument can be put to rest because the plants collectively recover further in under insured motorists coverage to conclude by way of summary this case is a straight forward application of the policy the district court properly interpreted and applied the policy is written we ask you to