found three areas in which the plan had abused its discretion in the st was that the plan failed to treat the social security disability award in the fashion required by mom tor versus her for and that's not an issue of planned interpretation which should be remanded the outs simply they didn't do their job they broke licensees and under the jurisdiction of the department of insurance the permit of insurance does approve and has to approve group disability policies before any california  and in fact that can i ask a question counsel i mean one of the questions here is whether the two thousand and five california settlement agreement applies and part of that i think inches on whether this is a california contract the contract itself says it's governed by pennsylvania law can it be a california contract for purposes of the two thousand and five settlement agreement but still governed by pennsylvania law or does that pennsylvania choice of law requirement full well know the choice of law to require amend y contract is interpreted between the parties i can't make an agreement with you know who sell you insurance if it's not in california if it hasn't been approved by the california insurance commissioner now the california insurance commissioner kalau pennsylvania choice of law but i mean you know if you look in the denial plan approved by the california joins mr the record does not say whether it was or not the requirement is that it must be filed within i believe it's thirty days of it being used in california and it's up to the insurance commissioner to approve or disapprove it and if the insurance commissioner fails to act or acts in appropriately then no cases say that you of affirmatively or negatively california ignored this or whatever it came into being is that provision still enforceable and why would it be enforceable if california ha what does it mean to have jurisdiction by the california department of insurance because there's two things one would be just approving it before the contract goes out but do they actually adjudicate claims is there i mean is the provision was invalid what would happen here is or is there more to be done or would we send it back and say twenty four months just doesn't apply the twenty four month limitation doesn't apply and would that make it a california contract well i mean because i thought it specifically so i guess i need to go back and look where where's the contract in the record do you know where that is because as a subsidiary page three hundred and nineteen dollars under the heading what are your monthly earnings there is a special paragraph for salaried employees excluding employees the balun consulting in california and then a paragraph that covers saw you have references in the contract to the department of insurance and a recognition that there were different rules that applied to allen consulting of california when applied to the other to the other california department of insurance in the contract i'm sorry i thought there was a reference to the california department of insurance in the contract what what's the basis for that why would he  different yes the claims manual on that is it's not hard it's not the policy well what is it what you mean it's not the policy it's a claims manual isn't it cover how you file claims to show that definition and what is the definition say i don't have it in front of me core the judgement as to adam must be affirmed or this simple reason that mr cox never worked for down his claim was covered under the allen plan got it right in the court interpreted the the terms of the dell plan properly in finding that mr cox never became eligible for benefits under the the plan because he was eligible for benefits under the allen plan and in fact did receive those benefits instead of taking issue with the district court ruling appellant creates this argument from whole cloth that that this court's decision as to you know somehow has an impact on the court's on the sister court's decision as to at mia and that is entirely incorrect there is no basis for that assertion there's no facts in the record or legal authority to support back inclusion nothing this court decides with respect to you know or the merits dell and that he received benefits under the plan the merits of that decision by you know are irrelevant to the eligibility question tonight i appreciate your whether it's a major corporation or texas corporation they have employees in california and subsidiaries in california would what do we what your normal process of that now for determining whether it's subject to policy is issued in another state even if the claim arises in california it doesn't necessarily mean that the planet loses its discretion so i'm not sure that there any other questions if not i think we have your human thank your honor thank you and mr share is it shares serves yes your honor thank you carl shirts on behalf of the entities  the litigation costs to the plan first and foremost most importantly is that before del you've been acquired that allen corporation is when this long term disability claim occurred this long term disability claim was triggered while mr cox was employed by allen corp before della choir and so that's when the occurrence was that's when it starts and it was covered thus under the allen plan and under the insurance policy and as the record shows that's why mr cox made a claim under the new policy it was in fact employer or dealt planned to provide covers that would be duplicated secondly there's no reason to join the dell it is for the for the facts that argued about there the plan also makes clear that the obligation to pay any claims is exclusively and soley owed by the insured not you know and that should be honored the or in the district court found that and in and that should be affirmed that dismissal is consistent with what the circuit found in this year opinion were talking about the logical defendant is the entity that is responsible for payment or for administration and that's what the milton vs life insurance company case for the administration of the claim and beyond that issue on the breach of contract for benefits then also there's no basis as we argue in our briefing for  additional coverage under the purchase agreement because the purchase agreement as cited by cox makes clear he's not entitled to duplicative coverage and then also there was no discrimination here we took no action either by virtue of the plan or through his employment she changed his coverage mr cox was covered under the implant down so you're you're you're over time now more than me and i think i think we have your argu i think you might be a mute sir counsel to the jurisdiction of the insurance commissioner of the state of california or you know is issuing all kinds of policies and they may be issuing them to california corporations but which there's no dispute that california law applies the question here california department of insurance and now it's california insurance co or one dollar to nine dollars and if that's it if they should have done that in this case then we should have some evidence in the record that they sought ok thank you counsel thank you everyone for i hope it is clarify some difficult issues in this case and the case is now submitted