resident policyholders if a policy is renewed issued for deliberate delivery or delivered or executed in the state of minnesota here that that issue comes before this court date you know and there are at least three reasons why respectfully the district court's decision should be reversed st the district court relied upon ik a minnesota supreme court case called can are published decision which is actually directly on point the case here and not only misinterpreted shot a concluded that even if shot so conflicts company that she's actually leaving are going to go live in minnesota for the next three or four years and then she come back to retire and shit fortunately a fatal accident in minnesota and soul you've got a company you've got a case where the insurance to either page five hundred and sixty one or five hundred and sixty two the court specifically sad doesn't have anything to do with our analysis so you're absolutely right on the fact that those are the facts but that was not the basis for the court decision in shop so it focused solely on residency so while you've recited those facts specifically the court in its zero pinion express stated that has nothing to do with our analysis and i'm glad to point that out because the district court in its opinion actually sort of laid out those same facts and was somewhat persuaded by that and so for from our standpoint the answer he did not purchase uninsured and under insured motorists coverage because it was optional in the state of minnesota and so you don't even get to our issue which is which involves excuse me and insured that elected to purchase coverage uninsured and under insured motorist coverage in another state and rather when he becomes a resident of minnesota that should be conformed to add on coverage rather than difference of the limits coverage because that's minnesota la all caps and how are two decisions which again didn't have anything to do with the issue in our case but had to do with how you interpret policies when there's a change in the law because they came down when minnesota was back in to get that you know and i understand that argument but i keep coming back to his what about freeze where the minnesota court of appeals didn't seem to be so convinced that shops will answer the question with you thought you're not doing because free is involved in non and that's where when i talk about the world that just are quite wrong is that you could be persuaded all day long your client pled that he was a resident of wisconsin at one point and then turned around pled later he was not a resident of wisconsin how can you do that well he can be a resident of both state can you be a legal resident of both states in a possible desired i mean dual residency there's such a concept i didn't know we were going to talk about that so much say but not knowing how to set their rates well is it me but minnesota has statutorily and for public policy reasons has a statute in effect that regardless of what may impact that may have been premiums as a condition of coming to minnesota and having the right to business in the state of minnesota you agree and you insurance company agree that you are going to be bound by our coverage obligations so that that might be so that an insurer if it doesn't have knowledge of where it's insured it's going to be minnesota so it wasn't subject to our public policy and statute so the where what i would point out is that where the court  any way rely upon whether the policy was issued deliberate or issued for delivery or renewed in fact it did it and in that case it could not because the policy had been issued in north dakota so any  this court for a reverse the district court decision because of that it's at odds with minnesota statutes that's the statutory analysis that should be engaged in here that it's not guided by the two decision and that shot was directly on point and that any of the other cases that are cited don't have to deal with the issue in this putative resident i think there's a question of fact with respect to the motion for summary judgment filed by appellant a putative resident of minnesota automatically has their insurance policy written up to conform with minnesota law which provide that coverage for under insured motorists must be provided on an ad on basis this policy was purchased in wisconsin where limits less paid is permissible and that's the language in the policy i'm going to start  in footnote three that your honor or your honor is the issue with the shops out decision in brief this is a statutory interpretation question and they interpreted only one of two statutes forty nine it doesn't state what those benefits are you have to read sixty five b point forty nine to come to a conclusion concerning what they are and this is a statutory interpretation question but it's one that's been decided repeatedly by minnesota courts and that is that under sixty five dollars b point forty nine dollars subdivision three a no under insured or uninsured motorist coverage must be provided to an out of state resident  and this is the point of can't to a policy purchased by an out of state resident will not be conformed to minnesota law and tell that policy is renewed delivered issued or issued for delivery in minnesota and can't be does therefore control there's a discussion a shot out that attempts to distinguish can't two on the fact that it's an uninsured motorist case there is really no basis to do so the statute section sixty five dollars b point four thousand nine hundred and thirty eight applies to both of the language is exactly the same there is no distinguishing factor there in really what both the shops a court did and what ms brill is asking this court to do is keep that section in jump instead the section four a which provides that add on coverage must be provided as one case but that counsel didn't bring up it is a case that involves a minnesota resident a minnesota resident from the time a policy was purchased all the way through out and that's johnson versus committee it's sixty five north act farmers nevertheless limits less paid insurance coverage in that policy after an injury and after an accident the insured argued that instead the policy had to conform with minnesota law to provide add on coverage and again the court directly took on the issue and one of big piece of the decision is a determination as to whether or not you can skip over subdivision three a which says when coverage must be provided and go straight to subdivision florrie which says how it must be provided and again the court said no you cannot do that they must be read together the summary the court's arguments statement i think says it all what it said was the context history and analogous case was regarding the operative subdivisions in section sixty five b point forty nine lead us to conclude that courts may not rely on subdivision for a to expand a policy's you i am coverage unless the coverage itself is required by law ok what the shop's out court did is essentially skip over the question of whether or not coverage is required by law the answer in this case is no that's why i can't to controls again because this policy takes pains to say it wasn't issued quote in minnesota it wasn't renewed in minnesota it wasn't executed in minnesota i presume that means that those events took place at the agent's office but it was issued to a minnesota insured living in minnesota at the time of issuance and the district court in this case synthesised it with the other cases on that basis i think there might be a question at some point where an insurer could challenge that determination i don't think that insured however division three itself so one of the two cases am co involved what's called stacking coverage and whether or not to policies or c b two vehicles can be listed at one policy and be subject to one limit or if you had to add that limit essentially together twice in that case the policy issued a lot was changed the policy wasn't yet renewed after the change of the law and the accident occurred and what the court said is given that the policy hadn't yet renewed the law wasn't effective and the anti stacking provision in the policy would not be effective either again the reason why that's important is the language used by the legislature is that the law would become effective once the policy quote was renewed issued issued for delivery delivered in or executed in minnesota the same language you're dealing with in this case how it was the opposite in that case actually the mandate for uninsured are to be under insured motorist coverage was removed from statute same language was used the policy change and then the accident excuse me that the policy renewed then the accident occurred and the court said no you can't read coverage back into this policy because the event had occurred that mandated a change here you don't have that event after mr brill moves from wisconsin into minnesota counsel what if the brill's picked up the phone and notify the region that richard was residing in minnesota prior to the accident without making a difference but i think it may make a difference in that a policy might then have been reissued i mean that's what should happen at that point the agent should change coverages and everything would then conform with the minnesota law because you'd receive a new deck page stating what the changes are and potentially a new policy period but if the agent took that phone call hung up and didn't do anything i don't think it would make a change your honor and i still don't think the case would then be an offer for us was shot south where you had a resident of minnesota there's a change in circumstance that changes the risks of the insured of the insurance company the insurer corrects what the language says you know and so obviously if they didn't stop ranchers to questionings up he used the company's wouldn't have any of those events to that would occur that would make this policy conform to minnesota law again it's just a statutory reading exercise really and the statute doesn't say if you call your agent and he ignores it or the policy doesn't make it change that there's automatic conforman knows any case law that i'm aware of although again shot so does make reference to of course that fact i do want to say to the shaft would be out of accord with minnesota law in and supreme court decision and sixty three the minnesota supreme court established in that case for the st time the uninsured under insured excuse me motorist coverage need not be provided at all to out of state residents that the main decision in the case but what it does in coming to that essentially rejects that to the extent it does so it's rejecting the supreme court's opinion improperly and it doesn't take control of this court as the court knows it looks what the highest court of the state would do  it's certainly not alone in that regard i mean that's been reaffirmed repeatedly cases are cited throughout the brief as the court is aware it really is the one case that's out of step with the others and it does seem to me that the court had in mind some of the issues raised by the panel the fact that we have an agent that is well aware of the move and of course a minnesota resident and frankly i think there was a reasoning it could have applied that would synthesize it with other decisions and i think the district court did that here which is a policy issued to a minnesota resident whether or not the physical copy of a crosses into the state of minnesota is issued in minnesota or issued for delivery in minnesota that's the way that case probably should have been decided that's not exactly what the court said  just briefly there was a nd question scuse me a nd argument raised in briefing concerning whether or not the should be certified to the minnesota supreme court i do think this is an important issue i think it's an issue that's been decided already so i don't think certification is appropriate in that regard and as referenced earlier those were motions for summary judgment in the case sort of through the district court for a loop but to the extent that this ruling is reversed i believe there's a question of fact on residency the still needs to be decided so we need to be reminded to the district court rather than reversed in full but at the end of the day this is a question of how much money mid century insurance owes to this insured whether it's in this let's paid or whether right up coverage and minnesota law applies for other reasons previously argued to century believes that it does not want to penalize any of the questions we would ask that you affirm the decision of the district court saying no questions thank you very much thank you requirement that a licensed and well and insurer provide it's separate uninsured and under insured motorists coverage in other words it's mandatory in the state of minnesota and that was what was that issue in cantu because the insurer that came to minnesota without any uninsured and under insured motorists coverage so the insured in that case was saying reform my policy to include this coverage it was not a question of reform the policy reform a policy which already includes separate under insured and uninsured motorist coverage and conforming to reform the policy so that it conforms with minnesota law and that's the issue in our case district court got to the wrong answer and as advocated by mid century is that it relies upon a host of decisions that really have nothing to do with this case and one of them which i did not discuss on my initial argument but was raised by mid century is the johnson fee crew miskito which is a case that involved motorcycles and in minnesota we do not require uninsured and under insured motor defined to exclude motorcycles again that analysis is not helpful to getting to the correct answer in this case now they focus on the gratuitous analysis done by the court and that can which we actually think helps our position in this case because it talks about where under insured and under insured motorists coverage as required by law and where it's not and here it is required by law so you engage in a different analysis of the last issue that i would like to discuss is that this is an important issue and it's an issue that in our view is going to be a repeated it involves analysis of statute and it also involves public policy of the state of minnesota because as i pointed out earlier in response to some of the questions by the court  matter of public policy that we require we the state of minnesota require licensed insurers to provide add on under insured motorists coverage and so what we are advocating in the alternative to this court  is that you certify the issue for decision by the minnesota supreme court and that may be particularly i'm hopeful here because that century views this case as all about can tune and we respectfully think it not so why not let the minnesota supreme court weigh in on the scope of its own decision thank you