peter fifteen minutes each you can say about any pushing you wish for a response i think you can safely  out this is an insurance case tom there's a an important aspect here that i think that the court should keep in mind when it's is there any case since coming that supports your view i would say that there are cases which of why is similarly odd but i don't think there is a well now you're going to argue that there's a public policy implication in the statute and you're perfectly free to do that but it would help if you had a case most commons that greet with well i don't think there's really i think what happened is analysis you're suggesting that they were aware of the amendment at the time that they wrote the company's opinion and that somehow mysteriously the supreme court's opinion trumps the amendment is that a fair you must you look at the person to determine what each individual does not i really do understand your position of almost positive i understand let me ask you another question how do you know that if the statute is interpreted is only applying you know applying them maximum for current first right the cases s companies all interpret the statute in that way and even suggest that cummings is no longer he even applicable when you take into consideration the amendment the statute isn't it reasonable to expect that these insurance companies are going to base their premiums i'm their total exposure rather than the exposure you suggest they should have is that question first it's a fair question if a case if they base their premium on their total exposure stuff so your public policy argument is basically in situations like this you first should look to the per person limits because that's what i say is the policy purchaser really focused on i didn't focus on the total want to call the amendment itself sad as merely you can't make the insurance company pay more than the difference it doesn't say or person it doesn't say for a crook i understand and so when what comments interpreted was the prior ones where it said when you determine what are those limits you must look at what was recovered what is recoverable limits this is why when you have a one hundred thousand dollar policy a guy was into a baseball field and hits nine kids and injured some and he's only got one hundred thousand why they can then go to their own insurance companies and say well we've got that thousand two hundred hours you know we want to get the different stuff but they got a twenty five fifty policy they get credit for the medical pay generally so everybody's policy debt is void against public policy not not the promise of the language it's the application in certain situations i mean it says they could do it so would you have to be the words that are well again when you when you look at when they look at what is behind those rules regulations nelson and hope and both sat it's to prevent double recover and when you're not preventing double recovery you're not achieving the goals of the policy all you're doing is penalize you and plaintiff pays for both of those coverages and in certain circumstances the reason for that was preventing every is effective but in others it's not and if a person hands up you know in a slightly better position to be paid for that cover you know if you you know in certain situations respond once we've heard from mine is it still mr morris i wasn't sure whether you were mr morse and mr james i'm sorry peter though that gives us the right he thinks based on cummins in the spirit comes to take each case on its merits and when we have a case such this to look at the individual situation and the sad whether we've applied the per person limits first before we have five i think that per person first her current first argument is really a red herring because it's ignoring the really true provision which is the limit of liability section mercury but you know we could have bought that belgium is very good opponent we chose not to do that in this case it's concede that for this case is under insured motorist case but we're not going to see it are set off and we certainly have a very clear vision which says the limits pay you the money went to your mother the money and therefore doesn't count for you and we don't really care how they move the money around they could pay all that they got forty thousand dollars for everything they could've given twenty thousand to mr two hundred thousand misses and zero for the daughter and then here saying i want two hundred fifty thousand dollars for the daughter we don't care how they win over that because the family got four hundred thousand dollars we'll five hundred thousand dollars limit for all the people that policy in that weeks later same for every versus triana on the other issue this court was fully analyze this whole issue as to whether you look to be her current comments or the per person limit where you have multiple insurers who are making claims you correctly rolled your follow up the older thing just that it's taking a policy that one policy single limit two guys recover a hundred thousand three hundred thousand dollar can't draft a statutory language that accounts for all of the vagaries that it could occur and this is ok when you apply the limits and particular facts such as for example in commons i think one of the things that supreme court struck of is that here we have a statutory scheme for under insured motorists and yet we've got this particular horrific accident with more people than anybody ever grant dissipated would have to be covered by the various policies so in order to make up for the shortfall and that's how you characterize that shortfall when you have multiple lines or people we have to really inject a public policy argument into our under insured motorist however if they had say eight people that were covered they had eight people that were covered at two hundred fifty thousand each the most they faced five hundred thousand now each one has a shot of that two hundred fifty right and maybe the injur i would say that the best answer to that question is that then it would be trying to legislate all but it raised and i think that as it's worded and interpreted properly now that people scott you might have a better shot at that