i feel very american family mutual insurance company issue is a familiar one it's an offset question question is whether money that is received from the other motorist involved is offset against the policy limits or whether the full policy limits set on top of that money the parties agree that the insurance policy itself is unambiguous it on an ambiguous lease says the money is offset everybody agrees that the only question is whether a renewal letter that was sent introduced ambiguity into the equation the district court found that it did introduce ambiguity into the equation it did it because of the renewal letter repeated the limits but it didn't repeat the officer that was that was the basis for the ambiguity that's legally erroneous your honour's under the missouri supreme court's decision in the craig case because craig involved the exact same situation it involved a policy that was unambig clear on an offset rule in another under insured motorist case and it involved an argument that a declarations page that repeated the limits without repeating the offset rule made it ambiguous and the holding of the missouri supreme court in craig was that when the policy itself is unambiguous a summary document that repeats the limits without repeating the offset role does not introduce ambiguity as a matter of law the procedural posture of the craig case was exactly the same as this case the district court there had found ambiguity and granted summary judgment for the insured missouri supreme court reversed granted summary judgment the insurance company on the basis of the unambiguous policy this court should do exactly the same thing here because the basic facts are in dispute the facts are that there was one hundred thousand dollars limit here there was an officer rule in this mckeel got fifty thousand dollars from the other driver american family after this case was filed concluded that it owed fifty thousand dollars and paid it therefore it's paid everything it owes and and it's entitled to summary  dealing with a declaration or sheet and is there any difference between the two i was a little unclear as to exactly what i understand that the  and it has the the insurance cards that are attached that go in the vehicle and in the in the purse or wallet and is that a sign as a declaration of does it make any difference  bottom line so what she received is a renewal letter that set pages eleven and twelve of the joint appendix single piece of paper front and back and what it says at the very top it says this is a summary you know and then it points to the policy number and it says you know please review the coverage if you want to make any changes call us but this is a summary and then on the back it tells her to look at the exclusions and again there are new features if you want so what letter it's not a declaration page that she did get a declaration is when she st bought the policy on that she did not get a new declarations page when she got this renewal she didn't need one because the policy itself in the general conditions is general condition eight said if you just pay your premium again this policy will renew and ms mckeel agrees that this was a renewal page two of her brief agrees that it was a new also just the same terms unless something changes on that it doesn't make a difference your honor whether it was a declaration page or renewal letter because the declarations page is more formal renewal  and those i'm looking at it looks like there's a statement of all the proof of insurance cards are attached and then there's a summary of coverage on the back side of it and that there are some new policy options available just noticed it was call kind of a thing right but but but even even if someone were trying construed the statement of coverage as a declaration under missouri law  i'm there might be an issue and that's especially so some policies your honor expressly incorporate the declaration page into the policy and so you can see a situation where if the declaration page said something directly different there could be a contradiction but this is a situation that's come up a bunch of times where all the declaration page does it says the limits again but it doesn't repeat all the details and that's the situation that the missouri supreme court said that doesn't create an ambiguity because everybody knows that declarations page is just a summary so it doesn't have to resale everything if it had to reset everything it would be a summary and then there wouldn't be any use of the declarations page right or trying to be simple here and the missouri supreme court as a set held that directly in this situation with under insured motors coverage and with the declarations page and so we think that case is controlling or i'll reserve the rest of my time  found a discrepancy or missouri cases where they found a discrepancy between the declaration page and the policy on an aussie as you said there was and ambiguity and then we have the yawners v craig case the zero supreme court case that cited by the pilots council where they did not find any ambiguity d but all of those cases are different in this case because in this case we actually had thirty eight for the two thousand and seventeen policy period for the renewal in july two thousand and seventeen the only problem was this page was never sent to miss my tiel and so what we what we have in this do so by just sending her a proper declaration as they enter us already which creates confusion and as an aside i think that that summary qualifies as a declaration so if you look at  all of that is included on this summer and what what and so i think it qualifies as a decoration page and and for sure it created an ambiguity and and also what we haven't in  because the declaration page for two thousand and seventeen includes the offset language and d the policy includes that language not and so i responded and she never received this did do what we need to do to be clear with our customer to not ambiguous anyway and i also wanted to address a question from one of the judges about he had to have a declaration page to be part that that that the one that was sent in two thousand and fifteen and the one that was not sent in two thousand and seventeen think end of think why if you look at the bottom of those declaration pages they say these declarations form part of the policy and replace all other races and issues previously it specifically makes it part of the policy and that's another reason why this case is different from the owners we crank cas if they had sent this two thousand and seventeen declaration page to ms by kill i would be today there would be no ambiguity but they didn't they sent her that covered summary which create the confusion and the ambiguity you look at the coverage summering which is from appendix one hundred is one place that and then it says this powerless american family mutual insurance company is up for renew itself that's the policy but the summary is referencing the underlying policy or my mis reading it up i think that that i don't judge i don't respect really i don't think that would make a difference just explosions are exceptions with respect to the law bill of the coverage for example or that comprehensive coverage or the collision coverage or the rental reimbursement none of those are specified in that in the summer and it is that does that mean if they don't no longer o'clock after it actually received this insurance coverage summary i think that the under coverages but i've i think that those coverages would only exclusions would still apply oh i get that argument but my real question is that if you look at the language and craig it clearly states that the declarations pages prefatory i mean i think the direct verbatim quote is is that the declarations are introductory only and subject to refinement and definition within the body of the our situation is is is is more like the cases i cited in my in my brief which does it do include a couple american family cases where they make the declaration page part of the policy if you look at the history of these by not including the fact that the set off language does a normal person would look at one hundred thousand under journalist coverage and think that they could collect up up to one hundred thousand dollars and so the insurance companies reacted to these to these cases and started putting the set off language in their declaration page which is exactly what american d family did d in this case and they started putting it some point after two thousand and twelve off language of the only problem in this case which makes it very fact specific and very unique they never sent that to miss my keel and that they sent a different document which created d created confusion to her your honour's in the crate case the declaration page was expressly incorporated in the policy you can see that from pages six hundred and fifteen and sixteen in in the case where it covers the coverage terms this case really is controlled by craig because the rule there is that if the policy itself is on him yes then just repeating the limits in whether it's a declaration page or some other document doesn't introduce ambiguity in the four cases that my opponent mentions there are all court of appeals cases there are not missouri supreme court cases and as we explained in our reply brief in every single one of those cases there was ambiguity found in the policy itself the declarations page didn't introduce it it was in the policy itself and that's the difference here this court has actually issued four cases over the last fifty six years or so applying missouri law to this very question of candidate declarations page introduce ambiguity into an unambiguous policy just by not restating the limits of the terms every time it's it's held no and a couple of times it's actually distinguish some of these court of appeals case and say we've got to follow the supreme  big factual argument here that the other side makes is that he says if the new declarations page of been sent they would agree and so on ambiguous we do too if it had been sent but it didn't need to be sent to make it unambiguous because it was already unambiguous and the idea that ambiguity could be introduced by not sending something is really contrary to missouri law in fact we cite the case in our briefs hester vs american family it's an american family case like this that holds that you can't change of policy by not saying something and that's the argument he's making by not saying something you changed policy that that's clearly incorrect the policy started unambiguous as he agrees the only thing that could have changed it was the renewal letter that's just a summary and for the reasons explained in craig it didn't do it your honor there is one quick question about what the renewal said a reference to this policy i read it the same as your honor did this policy refers to the specific policy number it has to say this policy rather than your policy generally because a lot of people have multiple policies and if you just said your policy would be ambiguous this policy with the number refers specifically to the one that's being renewed and the other text of the letter makes it clear that you have to go and look at this and said this is an outline this is a summary please read your exclusions carefully and for that reason we request the court to reverse and direct the entry of judgment for american family