disability insurance benefit and the cola increases or cost of living increases beyond the expiration date of being national policy for the rest of mister whipple life or whether the and at that time he decided to purchase from which was which was known as connecticut mutual life insurance company a disability insurance policy along with some riders that attach to his policy believe that he should he gets i believe it's eight thousand dollars under the like time benefit policy and that under the cost of living and roger he should receive an additional to why we believe that infamous i'm going to summarize what i think your argument is and let me know if i'm right or not because i was a little confused by some of the briefing here and how this all played out in the so as i understand your argument the cost of living writer is incorporated into the underlying policy as is the lifetime writer and because it's incorporated we then look to the termination section for the cost of living writer and that terminations section it terminates on the earliest and the last of those bullet points is the date that your policy ends and since it's incorporated all of them are incorporated into the other one policy the lifetime policy extended it such that understand your argument on the cost of living right or with regard to the termination provision but the provision right above that asks how long will pay increases and that says we'll pay benefit increases this is the cost of living writer increases until the earliest of and the last of those bullet points is the anniversary on or before your th birthday so even for some reason if the cost of living writer did not terminate doesn't it also explicitly explicitly say that we're not going to pay increases if the end uses stop meaning all the increases that have been there on the th birthday there's nothing left right there's no other increases there's no increase but the amount of money that he was receiving at that particular point in time is part of the the ability benefits that he was receiving and during the life time right or those total disability benefits will be extended you don't what about the current increases you don't take the fact that there is plural increases to mean all of the increases that have been accrued since the cost of living writer took started in which is in two thousand until it ended on the anniversary it's all the increase is right everything i had the increases in the well this is a increasing that's a that's a different word yes i increased it here right and increase is the same word that is what the writer provide so if the increases are gone after a certain date then what is there left after september st of tw lifetime writer then so i understand your position with regard to the cost of living for so in the months and the lifetime right or it defines the term monthly total disability benefit so what you said is he gets this total that screwed up and so there's a definition on there what monthly total benefits and that says the largest amount of monthly benefit that you will receive under this writer is shown on the current cover page of your policy and the cover page under the phrase maximum monthly benefit is it's eight thousand dollars right just for the basic policy it doesn't say basic policy it just says it so it lists coverage so i'm looking at though the cover page there is coverage and it lists basic partial disability life time cost of living or it really is is somewhat inconsistent because it says that the maximum but it really wasn't at that point it at the time he still had well that makes about it but it makes complete sense if we look to the what the lifetime writer says which is what you and i'm not looking at that line but even if i was looking at that line that's i don't see how that's inconsistent with what it says in the monthly total disability benefit again to finding the terms in the life in the long term policy it says the largest amount of monthly benefit not the year it's  but the largest amount you will receive is shown on the current cover and that says if you look at the line on lifetime accident sickness it's eight thousand dollars right that's what it's that and i think provision doesn't take into consideration the additional benefits that would be earned under the cola has just the right time benefit i mean are we may issue that they don't know who has the coal who doesn't know that number right now i believe it was sixteen in additional sixteen thousand dollars a month i don't look i don't i didn't really focus on the numbers so much when if you mean when he wants is the amount of coal ash that he was provision of it states this writer provides monthly total disability benefits to be paid beyond the anniversary i don't add to your th birthday and that's what we paid for like but then if you go down she took determination provision  understand how you read these policies to good i guess i want you to walk me through which one do i look at that tells me this is the benefit that we don't need you have to treat the policy in its entirety the whole me i don't know what happened there but i'll ask question after a lifetime roger has its own definition of benefits it has a section that defines the benefits that it's going to pay so it doesn't say it's extend could or it could be construed to mean all the benefits in cave under the policy that was the way we construed it well the policy talks about is a total disability policy the policy itself covers partial disability as well as go right but but where you have somebody who is in total disability receiving total disability benefits we construed it to mean all of the benefits that he was receiving under his total disability package at that time and that the lifetime rider extended all of that because that was his whole point and any the right or if you look at his application for it he said please add lifetime accident sickness rider to existing policy so in his mind his policy at the policy and he had a couple of the writers and he had to call or write or it wanted a lifetime policy that would extend all of that and that's what he thought he was getting and i mean if you look at the language again at the top of the lifetime rider it says that this rider provides monthly total disability benefits to you know kate for everything monthly total disability benefits so again we construe that to mean all the disability benefits she was receiving at the time i see them over my time so i reserve your time for oh thank you obligations doctor with all the documents are not ambiguous they do not conflict with each other and they make clear that doctor whipple is not entitled to call a benefit increases for life the district court correctly recognized all of these things judge antoun relied heavily on a clear language in the cooler writer that identifies precisely when cola benefit increases would no longer be payable he also recognized that the life time writer was not a mere continuation of the benefits available under the base policy let's walk through the documents in some detail so we can so we can find the support event of disability the right to basic monthly benefits under the base policy was of course based on the terms of the base policy itself we now know that riders attached to the base policy created additional rights while the base policy was in force for example the base policy included a partial disability benefits rider which we were discussing a moment ago the partial rider provided the right to benefits even when the insured was not totally disabled partially disabled more relevant for purposes of this appeal the koehler rider created an additional right that was not available under the base policy the koehler rider provided the right to certain increases on base policy benefits that co writer makes clear that the calculation of cola benefit increases was based on the basic monthly benefit under the policy there is a  clear provision titled how we compute monthly benefit increases and it is expressed lee based on the basic monthly benefit under the policy the cola benefit increases were payable to the earliest of three  that's really the most important language here there is a very specific very clear provision in the nd column of the cost of living writer that says how long will pay benefit increases and so low what your opponent saying is that she agrees that the increases in other words there is no further increase after the anniversary of the th birthday what counsel is saying though is at that point we know what the total is the amount that her client is receiving and that continues that amounts for the duration of a lifetime policy that's essentially what she's arc how how is that wrong how is that specifically wrong i think that interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the caller right or which provides for monthly benefit increases and that is the benefit the benefit increases and savings and so asking for further increases the increases can it's not it's doesn't say increases will freeze that were you know we will no longer increase we will no longer the benefit will no longer be increasing its benefit we will no longer be benefit increases under this writer as up well and that under arguing is and there's you know there's at least some support for some of this not that there's not a response to it but what the with what each writer seems to suggest is this writer is now made a part of her policy act it says that specifically this writer is made a part of your policy each one says so if you know at the time that they get the policy there's the basic policy in the cola and then a year later they add on the lifetime which says this writer is made a part of your policy and the termination provision for their ends at the date your policy and why is that not extend the whole thing according to that yeah i think i by virtue of becoming part of the policy that words if they're right that by adding that extension of the terminations into the underlying policy it extends everything it would have to extend something in other words it have to have some effect to it and when that effect be that well no further increases are assuming that the lifetime right are extended the base policy the thesis under which doctorate but was entitle to benefits does not necessarily become an extension of what was available under the base policy before hand and i think that if we if we go back for a moment to the provision on the cola writer us about when the benefits payable under the co writer will stop there is nd event listed there is the date your maximum benefit period ends that's exactly right i mean i don't i don't think the language could be more clear on the row that says lifetime accidents last that there's there's a one thousand dollars and as your honor pointed out earlier there it also appeared below where it says your maximum monthly benefit is eight thousand dollars think this language is not using nor do i think it can be reasonably interpreted to mean a lifetime right or was something more than the eight thousand dollars that appears on the coverage page of the massachusetts seem to read that that language of the bottom of your benefit period may be extended beyond that twenty seven seem somewhat two thousand and seventeen if you qualify for benefits under the lifetime accident to create some sort of ambiguity why is that i understand i think also though there are there are some meaningful distinctions between the language on the cooler writer in colt and the language of the caller writer in this case that could have informed the court's decision in cold we don't know that unfortunately because the cold decision was merely two paragraphs of analysis and and it's difficult to tell exactly what informs the court i understand that the court noted the provision that you pointed to your honor at the bottom of the page but i think overall it's difficult to really tell what form the basis of the court's opinion in colt aside from that though the cold does not appear to honor the principle that we know exist florida law which is ambiguity is not does not exist merely if the language is complex or if it requires analysis and that's an important difference there is it there is another panel of this court that recently confronted similar circumstances similar to writers and in that who were in that case the court held that a similar writer was called an extended writer because the equivalent of our life time writer did not operate to just continue or extend the benefits available under the base policy and in that case the court specifically relied on similar language in the riders and that extended rider again the equivalent to our lifetime rider that describes the benefit of vailable under the lifetime writer as a new monthly benefit just like what we have in the lifetime rider here which isn't a separate benefit it's defined in the rider itself so this is their record that the parties didn't have the opportunity to present information about the purpose or the operation of that terminations rider in the termination provision in the lifetime rider but but provision and the purpose of a lifetime rider i understand that that terminations provision is designed to address a situation where the two to make clear that it that it stops that there is no coverage for example beyond age of sixty five for example if if an insured is not disabled at the age of sixty five and then let's say at age sixty eight becomes totally disabled this provision in a life time  clear but that said he or she can come back to mass mutual back time and say hey wait now i'm totally disabled please start paying the benefits under the lifetime writer it makes clear that that the lifetime writer terminates at the age of sixty interpretation advanced by math mutual in this case and have held that the language of these and similar writers is not ambiguous it was a case decided by the new york state supreme court that scored lidsky vs mass mutual eastern district of it might require some analysis but that doesn't make it ambiguous we have a very specific very clear provision in arcola writer among other things but it tells us when the benefits are no longer payable that's consistent with the terminations provision in the cola writer itself and that is exactly the issue here do the cola benefit increases to pay beyond the age of sixty five and we know that they don't based on that very specific provision and that's the provision that governs this appeal and i'd ask  thousand dollars he received at the base amount plus he was receiving the cola benefits and that was more than eight thousand dollars and that's unusual it was painted and then they stopped so it is inconsistent with this coverage page because they in fact are kane more than that doesn't that indicate the clause has independent meaning because it refers to the largest maximum benefit that will be received and is defined as the maximum benefit under the lifetime policy in other words doesn't that doesn't hurt your argument rather than help your argument that that that is an independent clause specifically tied to that language in the lifetime policy or the time or i mean i don't think so because that just you mentioned the cold case if you look at the cole case the court there said that the lead time writer extended all the benefits that the health care of the individual in my case was receiving and i believe that applies here to it extended all the benefits he was receiving on a date that it it went into effect and that was the base amount plus the cola amount which i looked it up and i believe it was sixteen thousand dollars is two times the amount of the base policy and the nd point i'd like to bring up is that we did that i just brought up today and i know i'm over my time so unless any of you have any additional questions i would just respectfully request that the court reversed the district court's decision and rule in favor