my name is bernard law and then i'm here representing the a palance and core group and their subsidiaries i'm here with my partner jim walsh the issue in this case is whether the word any that the appellant's had purchased contains the language that the policy will pay for losses sustained during the period of any prior insurance that's all that this is about the if i were to walk you through the policy which i'd like to do you'll see that it's  insurance company calls it a business pro crime policy it provides the insured with coverage for various types of crimes that its employees could manifest against it page three fifty where the policy is located the policies for employee dishonesty the policy provides coverage for what they call a covered property from and covered cords covered property is money covered cause is employee dishonesty it gets interesting when we turn back a few pages more to the front of the policy where at paragraph ten it provides for the last sustained during prior insurance and then it paragraph fourteen an interesting juxtaposition of paragraphs but a paragraph fourteen it says policy period so it defines the policy period as just reading from now would pay  record page three fifty the policy period is shown in the declarations but then it goes on in section b of that policy period section it says subject to the last sustained during the prior insurance condition we will pay subject to the laws sustained during the prior insurance condition well that's actually closer to the front of the policy you would think policy period would come first but no it comes second so maybe there's something important about this particular clause that clause says which is it still a page three fifty paragraph ten it says that if you or you predecessor in interest sustain laws during the policy period of any prior policy we will pay provided that section  insurance became affective at the time of the cancellation or determination of the prior policy so what we're dealing with here is the english language we have pronouns do those it's very common in this form of insurance and because crooks hide their crimes you don't know when you're going to find the crime that they committed the policy requires that when you find the crime you have to report it during the policy period or they give you one year thereafter to report it but as far as when the crockery when the crime o rs you can go back as long as you had continuous coverage now this i think is where the district court below may have misunderstood the argument they thought it meant you had cumulative continuous coverage you don't but what you do have is as long as you continue to purchase a new policy every year for crime coverage if there's a loss that was sustained in a prior policy period the put this policy and the various variants of these employee dishonesty policies will look back at those prior policy periods and as long as you had continuous coverage you will be provided coverage so the word any is a pronoun which gives meaning to an indetermin now so insurance could be many or could be one pronouns like this or that i think provided a clause where the other side makes of argument that it says that provided this insurance became affective but of cancellation or terminations of the prior insurance and they say well only one policy can be terminated and that's the immediately preexisting also and that would be and then they say on terminations of the prior insurance and  there's only one policy to be terminated and that can only be one prior insurance so why would why wouldn't that have  all ok and i agree with everything you've just said their conclusion their reading is not wrong but their conclusion is incorrect because the way the way these policies work is that this policy meaning the current policy under which the claim is filed must be in effect at the time that the major share in state prior insurance and is long  thousand or paul's didn't become a factor at the time of the terminations of two thousand and two policy it became a fact only upon the terminations of the two thousand and three policy so that all i'm saying in this provided you have three different things to explain one is the that's the first part of that provided but the second point is that on expiration the policy the policy is the prior policy but the word the can also be construed as any prior not that that's not true that rewrites the contract to rewrites the contract if you disregard the word to any what is this what is the one is common understanding of the word any look the i read these policies a lot and they like it they can make head spin but i mean if you look for instance just to show you another some of the language if you look at paragraph eleven of this policy which does not relate to policies that may have been issued by another company but to any policies the string of policies issued by this insurance company they say that if we look back on prior the declaration to prior insurance referring to the three thousand three specific and we're trying to interpret how this policy as a whole how can we interpret it in a way that makes sense or that you have some effect of language i'm just these are you know these are two commercial entities not entirely clear but the question is where it is the way a valid interpretation all right well with respect to a reference to the declaration page the prior insurance is the specific prior policy but this the scheme that's invasion is that you will maintain with every policy that you get a prior insurance that will be identified and it will go back in time what i was referring to  paragraph eleven is the wording here it says regardless of the number of years the insurance remains in force or the number of premiums paid no limit of insurance  year to year period to period the policy is here anticipating that this policy will look back they don't want you to accumulate you're only going to get one limit of liability on the policy you don't want you to limits of liability but it clearly in this paragraph is invasion ing that this policy doesn't look back to prior years additionally the court below did not want to consider it but there was a prior claim a year  earlier for a different one of their subsidiary companies that had dishonesty laws and it was paid and it was paid because the company the insurance company looked back three years and paid the  client the court didn't want to consider that because that claim was saddle but it was settled on the grounds it was a dispute of how you calculate the claim there was not any dispute is that the insurance company had looked back this particular condition so years of the provided clause conditions and exactly the question and the plain language of the policy is whether this insurance and everybody agrees this insurance means the two thousand  policy became effective at the time or terminate of terminations or cancellation of the two thousand and two policy or the factory mutual ossie and the answer to that question is is plain as can be on page three forty five of the joint appendix the two thought the parties agreed expressly in writing that the two thousand and two policy was cancelled effective december first two thousand and three the two thousand and four policy on the same page became effective on december first two thousand and four a year later so the two thousand and four policy for it simply did not become effective at the time of cancellation of the two thousand to see the same is true with respect to the first policy that was issued by factory mutual insurance company in one thousand nine hundred nine and that can be found on page one forty two of the joint append expired on december first two thousand and two which is two years before the two thousand and four policy under which the claim has been made became effective when asking the court to do is rewrite the condition ten so that it ignores the terms terminations and cancellation and pretends that they are meaningless when we refer to the two thousand and two policy in a factory mutual policy but the contract no matter what laws applied has to be enforced as it's been written the fact that i'm course trying to rewrite the contract is most apparent on page twenty seven of its opening brief in which it takes the phrase that we've been discussing this insurance became effective at the time of cancellation or terminations of the prior insurance and in brackets replaces takes six of those words deletes them replaces them with one thousand new words so that it reads this two thousand and four policy became effective  time of cancellation or end in time of all of em corps earlier insurance policies within a single unbroken period of time that's just not what the two thousand and four policy said if it did then perhaps the two thousand two pozen factory mutual policy would be incorporated but footnote kind of retaining the argument he made at the district court that this insurance actually means the series of policies it had with great american is in there right i saw that footnote and i thought that that was the argument but counsel i believe that stood up here and told the court asked me you know when did your car insurance become effective i think of the first time i took out the policy and then yes i renewed it every year since then but you know my insurance started when i first took out a policy and it does say insurance and not policies allies and if at least a fairly understanding that this insurance might refer to the series of policies i think it's not a fairly understanding because the all you have to do is result to resolve it is look at page one of the policy the declaration page which says the prior insurance and has a specific policy number which refers to nothing other then the immediately prior policy is cancelled as of the effective date i think that i don't think it's ambiguous to begin with but to the extent it is the declaration page leaves absolutely  and so your argument about the extrinsic evidence the idea that maybe a great american has construed this differently in different cases it's not relevant because there's no ambiguity here exactly and i don't believe that the extrinsic evidence supports yes please come forward you just to clarify this insurance i thought i was specifically referencing your question but this insurance does refer in our view to the series of insurance that they had but specifically  claim here refers to this specific policy that that's what i thought i was addressing the i would also like to raise the law that's involved here the  there are only three circuit cases federal circuit cases interpret in this type of an insurance scheme they've all been cited in the briefs there is one k one circuit court case that court did not address this specific issue and in fact in the case the court specifically says we do not address the issue of whether the lookback period how far it goes back there were two other circuit court cases there is the times picayune case which is the fifth circuit which i thought was a somewhat good exploration of the languages if different the scheme is the same  and but they do address the fact that on these type of crime policies you must look back over the period of the fraud is this another case to bring them young case and they also that you know the natural law principle was that what we need to or don't need to do is an abstract matter i'm just looking at this particular present policy vis insurance right here now became a factor when does it become effective at the terminations of the prior insurance and it just goes it seems to me just the right it just seems to me to trip along from one singular to another i mean there's no there's no break in the singular it just goes from singular to singular to singular singular cept it's multiple in the clause that tells you what it's going to provide coverage for the last sustained during any so it's can you try to remain that's the the record the underwriters of these policies want to know that you did not as an insured go bare you did not have a period of time that you didn't have coverage because maybe then you find out that there was a lot so then you buy  i mean the whole question is not what we think the scheme should be just what's reflected here in the tax but what's reflected in the text at best is an ambiguity then there ought to be a trial about what then resolve that ambiguity because as you point out which i don't necessarily agree with because i think ambiguities under connecticut law if we were to get into that would be resolved even even with the big commercial insured would be resolved against the draft or the policy of the insurance company but but even presuming that it doesn't get resolved against a tractor the insurance policy nonetheless if there is an ambiguity when you have to have a finding