signature on an application is conclusive of the issue as you are well aware montana larkin's trolls and sense rescission is an equitable remedy the cases are very fact intensive and the good case of all had gotten strained so that was a fairly specific amount of detail about that now we know that the time frame was in early one nine hundred ninety five from the letter that landed re finally he was using what was called the old few program at that time which was a program designed by minnesota mutual agents in getting cases past us faster and the model of that if you could a program was to unlock the door to quicker some health questions and that was the very first health questionnaire that was prepared there in november and december are the two incidences regarding design pulling incident the incident about which letter landed w involved in insured who failed to disclose six different doctor visits and they were just for pulled muscle they were for alcoholism and depression despite that the court held that th hypertension chronic obstructive lung disease and disease or disorder of the kidneys the real basis for that decision was a failure proof the the insurance and that the agent most likely had knowledge of his medical condition and he did a medical knowledge that he submitted which showed that the doctor was going to recheck his oxygen if you still needs it and his point was that the agent should have known that he was on oxygen at the time that he was in the bank getting the insurance application questionnaire was something that was not in the possession of the agency in other words it was only in the possession of mr armin because he had his ninety four policy so if they got the ninety four policy out his copy of his original while they're doing the ninety five application perhaps they didn't take this information but he was present and had the opportunity at that point in time to say well gee a couple  after that just a couple months before before now i've had serious back problems i've been to a chiropractor i've been to a doctor my problems are much worse instead we know that he didn't do that we know that he signed in certified the application saying it was true and complete the way of  the snyder case is applicable and as your honor pointed out a moment ago it set forth the rule that if something is material as a matter of watching if there is a question in the application and here of course there again back in the snyder case several years earlier the court had notice and noted that the plaintiff insurer had called an expert witness to argue over that there was no expert witness nor the witness that argued with the under have a fifty year old real for a real estate broker unknowledgeable businessman president of his company a good sized realistic company who signed in sort of five an application  put the burden of god on the insurer to disclose his health but on the insurance company to have to discover like the focus of it for a moment on what the agent knew beginning from slammer which says that we've been pure speculation to go further but here we know the agent knew something about a back problem it's not clearly defined exactly what it is the agent and that she had disclosed that he had hardening of the arteries and that would involve a little bit of information but the lead was a pretty big one because they're trying to say that the agent should have figured out for matter might be something wrong not worry about it we don't mean that but it's it can't be said that that piece of paper forecloses the possibility of inquiry notice or some obligation on the part of the agent to convey information to the company i think what we can or when he said something about his back i don't remember if i asked him whether or not even with dr pigg that any further is to speculate we have no other evidence in the record to go beyond to say that if you know something more so they're basically asking that the jury be allowed to speculate that perhaps he knew more on the other hand we know that when he was asked did he tell you about these treatments with the doctors and any time absence of a witness and and we know that the agent knew about a back problem and we know that the agent knew there was a particular episode when he pulled and the november when he pulled the sign out of the r v in a way it was a political learn of consultations with doctors as a result of the backing chiropractor treatment that's right we know that he was not that the treatments were not disclosed and we know that we have a signed certified statement from the the evidence in the record and that's where we cannot go beyond what the record shows that the agent knew in this case and i just simply say that the jury should be entitled to speculate i think the murdoch cases serve very similar in that we have disclosure of general problems of drinking and of alcoholism but not a treatment for alcoholism information meet standard for inquiry notice and all of these pieces of so that what would you learn by further inquiry by the west the information sufficient and so just as we just discussed it's the same thing there's two parts to that question have you had or have you been treated for all we know that at least to some extent the have you had  but but since he says he was he says he can't remember whether he asked when they were having that discussion but he can say that the questionnaire was prepared the questions were asked and he does say also testified that his height and his weight was white so she sandwiches that those three questions were why everything else was spelled out when the agent brought it back from his meeting with the insur well you know at least that part is i'm not sure the basis for saying you know exactly how much i mean i heard what you said the very beginning with regard to what must have been in his office as the sure the jurisdictions didn't have a copy of the form but i have to say as i look at the for the testimony we want everybody in the field in all of this over the question for the name of the position until the bottom of the page all the same time i mean the state of the testimony but i gotta say on the face of this piece of paper it puzzles me thousand and one they looked at the clarity of that question forth in our brief it's our position that the record is clear that there's no evidence to support those needs an independent basis who from the dismissal of those counts thank you you thank  you i think that we don't need to rely on speculation instead the documents themselves volumes because there was this blank last an application part two in the ninety five application al look at application part of his with respect to the question about doctor visits there is at least some testimony that landed did ask out about doctor visits and i will quote from page seventeen of leonard land his deposition i asked leonard landa the question when alan discussed with you the problems that he was having with his back did you follow up with him and asked him whether he had would be i think an inference that the jury jury would be entitled to determine and in the end the issue of whether al should be bound by the certification i think that montana law is clear that the reasonable expectation of the insurers controls there were two cases i submitted a supplemental authority that talk about the reasonable expectation of the insured controls over the actual policy language there's also the curtis case in the village a case in which there you asked me when i first started arguing this case and that is the extent of the land as knowledge well that would be a question of fact and i think i am as entitle to have a jury consider that actual issues as well as have the court make some decisions