primary insurance on the one hand and on the other hand then the rd alternative interpretation which in my opinion is the least reasonable and most constraint of the it policy issued to you by us and of course as you know the main section says one or more policies rather than anything isn't just the natural reading of that is the one says we put an issue to you by us if we did it find terms and the other one just has a as broad as can be i disagree that it is bad for us when you look at the context of the language in the policy so the heading here is two or more i disagree and i'm glad you asked that question because i think that language actually does help to explain what an ordinary insurer might the  under all such policies or provisions under insured motorists of rage not need anyone vehicle the mirrors the general provisions and these alternative interpretations offered by the opponents are or are possible and used the word positive multiple times but we all know what plausible means and they have to actually make sex so in order to have an ambiguity the language can't just be confusing and it can't be difficult by their nature insurance policies can be difficult because they are contract that is meant to address the fact that lean and limited set of attention serves though your argument is looked at in its totality and you can't parse words you can't take sentences apart it refers to other applicable one hundred sure motors insurance and then it states any recovery for damages under such policies or provisions of undershirt motors coverage but would not exceed the highest applicable limit for any one vehicle under any insurance providing undershirt motorist coverage on either a primary or access bas so when you when you address this also within the scope of a policy that has a more specific provision that addresses policies issued by safe though you can't reach any other conclusion then this is referring to any policies that offer under insured motorists coverage and it's meant to specifically address exactly this scenario that we have in this case and you're citing are but there's nd argument that you can just take this either a primary or excess basis and attempt to apply this separately does not work when you read the preceding language which says under any insurance provided under insurance motors coverage on good or primary excess basis so when you read the sentence in its entirety it's obviously meant to to apply to eight election of r c s though they provide coverage on a primary or next best basis and it's not meant to apply to them separately where you would get the highest limit of the primary and then you get the highest limit of the web says in fact if that were the case then you would even have this provision because you'd be getting both you'd be getting contributions from both policies in a circumstance like this and so there would be no reason for that provision to be in the policy and interrupt your center absolutely the other side in every forty or fifty times used the term set off a site set up cases they quote unquote anti specky provision doesn't make any difference you still have to have an ambiguity in order for it not being forced by their very nature are not prohibited and you know as a basic kind of script of mis any time you have a prob sample a one hundred thousand dollars limit but because of that nature of under insured motorist coverage there must be underlying coverage you're never going to replace or are never going to recover the one hundred thousand dollars stated limit in the now made their way into insurance policies these were nomenclature used by lawyers words to describe groups of what they perceive to be similar insurance provisions same things true for set ups sometimes these things are called  spin off of the uninsured motorist coverage cases and then it made its way into a two under insured motorist cases be a this other insurance provision and then but now it's made its way into multiple policies and b so these are all just terms that are developed to allow people to to in an easier fashion express what's going on but they have no impact on the ultimate rules of construction i mean the policy is is d viewed as a whole explained in more detail by the language that it goes but needs so what we call the stacking set obs interior intra doesn't really matter what matters is what the policy language says and that's reviewed you know as a matter of law by the by the court in its totality and when we look at this language it really can't mean anything else and it quiet as cleanly as possible to this exact circumstance everybody agrees the travelers policy is primary that is not the standard in a case like this it's a insurance company has an obligation to produce language that a reasonable and ordinary insurer understand it and then completely fail to do so think perhaps the strongest argument in support of the fact that there is ambiguity in the language and fusion in the language is the fact that save save co has incorrectly case i respectfully disagree that it doesn't matter words matter and what insurance policies do in the analogy we use matter and if you do it incorrectly and if you get sloppy with  and there's the position that the other insurance or perhaps one why stop with the cost of it and so because of those three alternative interpretations it reasonable i'm sure looking at this you're