which leads me to my next argument regarding maintenance because this was raised maintenance or procuring the tiles there's a provision that i know that yes but this today it says you know if you do not contain that underlying  it doesn't matter because that the over the line umbrella coverage will be considered less but in this circumstance what they've done is the fuse the w it can only be a farmer's comprehensive liability policy and what judge here is did was turn an auto policy into a comprehensive farmer's liability policy by rewriting house and i would cover both the farmers policy and the what was it five what's the number five whatever i can't remember  questions about both the facts and legal issues that are here before the court because i think that the first question that you asked justice her about the critical issue being the language and the ensuring that all motor vehicles the the central issue but i want to actually start by the question that you asked me and as relates to can the same underlying policy be underlying for two umbrellas and was that in fact the case here and although hastings  it is the tribe or of a policy they claimed it was the underlying policy because they interplay in fact they call the seven seventy five six problem is a mistake was well it may or may not have been a mistake on december sixth that you're a few weeks later they applied for an umbrella policy and it was issued to them six days later on december twelfth with an effect of data center the seven and it lists  important points for the people here which here is what they are i december twenty first nine days later the congress personal all the policy the one that these things cost seven for nine policy was amended to increase the limits to five hundred five hundred watt so that it would conform to the conrad force on roe now hastings obviously takes the position in this case that the same underlying policy twenty at the time they apply for they have coverage for their vehicles the same coverage that the car ids personally had in terms of the limits to fifty five hundred and on december sixth of twenty or seven  grow a policy is issued and we go back to your first question about underlying insurance being in effect it was it was not hastings argues before this court that well the  that's five hundred five hundred they can replace the policy that is to fifty five why is that important it's important because we have to give effect to the language and it's also important in our he's talked about this in the insurance contracts are not construed like all contracts where you ignore the circumstances and the intent of the party from the view of ensure the reasonable person on the street there are a unique animal in the that coverage is in place which in fact it was and it says that even if the underlying coverage is not maintain the umbrella still affords  like to point to an exclusion in the policy that talks about failure to maintain ongoing coverage but there was a long road and in the body of the policy we find the same language that exactly the same but mirror language in the underlying in the body of the policy that mirrors the decade that says if you don't have the underlying coverage the policy still provides coverage and that is where judge paris found that there was a clear inconsistency hastings argues that a glaring language in paragraph be so times is significant sometimes it isn't and depends on what comes bomb i think that's what his argument is and so let me just kind of border play what comes underneath and the policy that's listed that follows because it's not it's that the language in the beginning it says quote it is agreed this in all caps this is agreed that the following underlying insurance a is in force which  here's the the fact that led to judge harris making better when trying or file their interferon they attached to it and it was based on a personal and court auto policy that only named as the insured david conrad because after they issued the policy at which time it listed try to work as a short her vision in the underlying auto policies you had what would be described as identical use are the names ensures the same such that the two policies can't be combined judge term that hastings could have used in there they didn't use any other policies sort of use the term but they didn't use here so i haven't noticed the yellow white i'm sure that i'm well past my you get a two or more policy provision which hasting says applies and you don't have identical dues you really come back to it a simpler point that runs through both appeals your honor and it has to do with what parties for what vehicles with what money and there's a very clear line of demarcation here and facts in the record below that are all without dispute if we reject tastings appeal where does that put your cross find in the policies that would apply and allow for staff the reason being that in the policy that hastings has already interplay the you use tripe they want to say it's type work case law relative to entice the provisions if i understand his argument with mr white's is arguing is the use in these different policies are not same but they don't have to all  of the larger of the two limits so if you have one two with reading and one policy and one three and five named under a second policy one doesn't get additional coverage because he's