declarations page that specifically named her as a named insured on the policy inside nothing further so the question here in the two st party coverages being at issue in this case is one uninsured motorist coverage into medical payment coverage obviously the more significant coverage that we think is at issue here is the uninsured motorist coverage given that her endless nature of the accident that led to m becoming seriously injured while riding her bicycle sentient being a pedestrian so the primary issue then is whether under the policy as revised through this amended declaration is whether she's now entitled to recover under those two provisions which nobody disputes or losses that occurred during the effective date of the policy the t issue that that we also posed to the court today is whether the district court heard in granting summary judgment from the insurance company on mr says claim or the appellant's claim for reformation of the policy but we don't think the court needs to go there we think given the plain language of the policy the court need nothing more than enforce the policy according to its plain terms to find as a matter of law that this policy in fact provides these coverages because it's absolutely undisputed that these losses occurred during the policy period what's your response to their known loss doctrine argument absolutely  doctrine as a matter as a general principle of law and we wouldn't be here today for example if they had added misheard to a subsequent policy in this we wouldn't be here because we're not seeking coverage under a prior peer policy period we are seeking coverage under the same policy period in which he not only sustained the losses but in which he became insured for those losses what's going to happen to you if when the agent called the underwriter and said hey we want to add her as a named insured to the policy if they decide now if they had not added her right to the decorations pages and named insured right and so again we don't dispute at the time of the accident judge carson that misheard did not have coverage for four did not have uninsured motorist coverage in the coverage because the way the policy was written she had to be occupying a covered auto at the time she was sustained her injuries as a result of an uninsured motors we don't dispute that right so do you do you agree that they that they had the right well i'm not sure how to answer that question other than they made the decision at her what went through their mind i can't speak to their mind on that there's nothing in the record on which i could base my answer well it i mean it sort of weaves back into what with asking you i mean you don't insure against a no not law they were already aware of the loss and so it just doesn't make sense to me why they would agree to insure her for a loss that had already occurred i mean because that wasn't part of the that was a part of went in what went into underwriting the original policy well what we do know your honor is at the time that there were conversations we've seen mysterious inner turns agent they've all been there was no question that both parties went away with your understanding that mr hurst definitely intended to be covered for accidents for injuries that occurred even when she was not occupying a covered auto that's what they understood full coverage mean misheard understood that that's how her prior policies had been written on her personal automobiles and had no reason to believe that she would be any less covered under this policy and it didn't but at the same time you agree that the plain language of the policy doesn't square with that it was at the times of the of the l c s policy at the time she at the time she had the accident yes because she wasn't there as a named insured and she would only have the coverage unoccupied right ever and so even if she when she st bought the policy if she intended it to function just like her personal policy i mean she has a duty to go read that policy and understand what the terms are doesn't she she can't she can't rely on some informal understanding with the agent that sold it in and what's what's the reformed policy is that a commercial policy that covers employees of the l l c well is it are you asking that we interpret the facts here to create a commercial prop commercial policy that covers employee ease of the l l c employees of the l l c under the policy are covered even before the revised amendment your honor when they're not the only time when they want us to have them covered for accidents in when they're in their capacity as a pedestrian correct sell that policy does it they did miss instance it doesn't cost any more to add that's the significance and it says if she had been insured from one dollar from day one all they had to do was add her as in additional insured didn't cost any more money in ford ever reason she not she didn't get added as in the additional insurer well that she asked to be named insured i don't think specifically but what that what the idea was was i want to be covered in i think mr all the nimitz that in his deposition said that he was specifically trying to go to procure the policy for the l l c because the l l c was the entity that owned the vehicle so he knew exactly what it was doing or the policy right perhaps there might be some some but i think what your point goes to judge bacharach is is there's issues of fact here in the reformation you know what did they truly intend it's a jury question her well how was there a jury question on what nationwide then there might be a jury question on what this hearst intended or even mr all that but i don't think there's a jury question on what nationwide intended as nationwide's agent so whatever he intended would be imputed to nationwide right now your evidence about they had i understand is that he had a representation agreement right that's your only evidence that he was acting as an agent now obviously he was a selling agent but what how can we reasonably infer from this statement that he was that he had a representation agreement that he was able to bind nationwide to conform to whatever his unilateral understanding of what the policy would cover how could we reasonably infer that well let me try to answer it this way your honor st under wyoming law w issue is merely procuring the policy for insured on behalf of an insurance companies enough to make that agent the agent of the insurance company and we cited in our brief i think it's the core darryl case that maybe a different scenario that this hurst was driving the vehicle and that she was completely drop and history and she was drunk and mr all than testified that well i thought the policy covered insurance even when they're drunk and miss her said i thought that that it did so with that buying nationwide to cover an occupant of the vehicle that  intoxicated simply because the selling agent unilaterally believe that it covered something that obviously wasn't would limit yes there to the selling agents it would be to darn the insurer that's that's a good question and i'm thinking here i can't think of any insurance policy out there that would would ever fit that scenario it would depend  on whether she was seeking st party or rd party coverage i would assume if it was rd party coverage she would have that coverage regard to whether she was toxic ated because of the the financial responsibility laws in the state of wyoming ar insurance escape liability at least up to the minimum limits required by law so i don't i thought so would become in that instance you get into a question of public policy and that would probably be an issue of  limits in in the court might construe it in favor of reformation because you've got an innocent victim out there and they might construe it that you know that's what the parties intended and we're not going to hurt the insured or the victim of this woman's tort but in the st party context we also have public policy concerns at play because while me is a state that doesn't require is it man did it is it mandatory to have uninsured motorist coverage but it certainly is statutorily required that it be offered in that and so on ad instance there are public policy concerns that come into play here that should guide the court's analysis on this because we are talking about  it's a little nebulous but i think that in the end of the day there might be a serious issue here is to whether there would be you know you what provision would be talking about here we know it's precisely what provision of the policy we're talking about all it was was a question of adding her to the decorations as a named insured that would broaden broaden the coverage and or allow for mr harris as the sole member of the cell will see they have this extended they have this coverage even the coverage would follow her and supportable the way the policy was written it wasn't portable it would only come in a plain be turbulence use occupying a covered auto but by adding her as a named insured it made it portable so it doesn't matter she'd have the coverage even when she was injured as a what occurred here when she was riding her bicycle so we think there is a serious question here that should the court find as a matter of law that it can't rule on the coverage question or can rule as a matter of law that for some reason the policy doesn't provide this coverage then certainly we think there's fact issues that should be decided by a jury on the reformation question because again the record we believe the record supports a finding that there was a mutual understanding dating the issuance of this policy as it is reason but it she didn't get on there and in that came to everybody surprised that my gosh you're only we don't have it here so we think then but going back to the plain language of the policy she's entitled to this coverage because the policy provides unequivocally plainly states that we cover all losses nationwide will pay all for all accidents or covers all accidents and losses occurring during the policy period so the question is did these losses occur before or during the during the policy period for which he became insured for them the answer is yes and we just asked the court to just follow wyoming law enforce the contract is written may please the court counsel along with jack manning great hearing i represent nationwide mutual insurance company we request that this court affirmed the district court's well reasoned order granting the motion for s as you've heard the this lawsuit relates to uninsured motorist coverage under a business auto policy a commercial policy and whether it would require provide coverage for sarah hirst washrooms riding a bicycle on a saturday afternoon what you have not heard is that in fact there's the related matter that went up to the wyoming supreme court relating to missed her st personal auto policy through metropolitan life insurance company which in fact provided uninsured motorists in the situation which is exactly the way the insurance products should work there was a personnel policy that provided coverage for uninsured motorists and in fact there are insurance products available whether it would be an umbrella or an excess policy that miss her could have purchased the product that issue here the commercial policy the business auto policy is not designed to provide or to protect so men in an unrelated saturday afternoon activity but once you made her an unnamed insured she would have gotten that coverage right but even on the commercials potentially your honor it would then we'd have to look at whether be a pedestrian or bicycle along those lines but it may and that's why there to judge carson's comment that's why there's was such pushback by nationwide to say we don't typically add individuals to a business policies and in fact the agent so conceded the evidence here the undisputed evidence is that in fact an exception was made solely with respect to future claims so we with respect to claims that may occur in the future and that is confirmed even by the  chews comment about the known last doctrine the known last doctrine is a fundamental insurance principle and we raised it in into the extent that it would apply here that that fundamental purpose is you don't apply it to fortuitous you applies to for to a to see vents not to past events the known last doctorin kicks in typically when there's a last prior to the inception of the policy here it's a broaden coverage during the policy itself so there for the liberalization policy liberalization clause of the policy kicks in and only applies immediately the other evidence though judge carson is i'm both sides st with respect to the agent now his e mail us contemporaneous emails specifically discussed that again they're going to add you to the policy on future claims that's at the appendix page one hundred and sixty nine dollars his testimony throughout his deposition was that he did not request that they back date this at all and in fact that is found at page one hundred and twenty three appendix volume one in a requesting the addition a miss hers were you requesting that nation wide back date coverage answer no further there are the emails or there is an e mail from nationwide where in fact an internal e mail discusses that and in fact it talks again about that it would the extent there would be any issue or dispute applies only prospect of li not retroactively there is no evidence no evidence that this was ever intended to back propose provide that remind me of the day of the timing of all this so after she was added as a named insured how how much time passed before nationwide got hit with a claim for the sun unsure of motorists coverage then april of two thousand and fifteen the law on the policy would expire the lawsuit was filed presumably she made a claim though before she felt a lawsuit she didn't just immediately file a lawsuit against  under the business out of policy by february of two thousand and fifteen right but then march comes along and she gets you to add her as a named insured right prospect of lee welcome that's that's that's that's in dispute so then did you get another claim after she was added did she say wait a minute you added me so now i get coverage your honor if i recall the record correctly the next step was the lawsuit when the complaint was fil three arguments are presented the st has to do with the the coverage that's addressed under the contract language as with any insurance claim really the alice's starts in this case ends with the language of the policy the liberalisation provision here talks about the effect that if you have brown coverage it applies immediately immediately is prospectively you look at everything under insurance law the known last doctor and all the other concepts of herbst exactly so that's the nd argument and in understandably that they would require what you have to look at though is what are the meeting of the minds and did those minds meet and i think the district judge did excellent job here even looking at this in giving the evidence in the white most favorable to the plaintiffs what was supposed to happen what we heard was is that mr walden would provide full coverage and that full coverage would include uninsured motorist benefits that was that's the allegation that happened ok if now let's no you dispute this but if you assume argue and that mr all  did act as the agent in order to be sufficient to bind nationwide viewing the evidence of the light most favorable to the plaintiff couldn't you reasonably infer that mr  and missed her st had the same understanding judy extent of what will be covered well there you go it's at what would be covered to the extent that there would is any evidence of any misunderstanding whatsoever again you have to look at what may drawl then would say and it's full coverage including us well as your adversary points out he was specifically asked a deposition whether the exact question but it ends and yes that that his that his understanding was that she would be covered for injuries that she would incur as a pedestrian no i take issue with that just just briefly the issue is pre destined never came up and in individual e to be covered when she was hit by an uninsured motorist that's the met life policy that's the individual policy i do not ever the pedestrian part never came into play that was his pedestrian never came in that the question was you know whether it was occupying a covered vehicle she would have coverage if she was driving to court in her lexus automobile and was injured by an uninsured driver she would have uninsured motorist coverage while she was occupying a covered auto so so the full coverage that mr al included uninsured motorist and included her how do you know that he was referring to the policy well it says individually i procured uninsured motors for sarah st individually to be covered when she was hit by an uninsured motorist the business side oh that would be a pretty sophisticated conversation to say ok now wait a nd are we going to have pedestrian coverage under my met life or or the or the business the insurance product here was the met life personal policy if you want to have uninsured motorist coverage that would include you riding your bike on a saturday afternoon is out there it's met life she purchased it she purchased three hundred thousand dollars limits another insurance product out there would be an umbrella or an excess coverage and she could have purchased that as well the business otto is not that product in the l l c have other employees besides mr ms hers i believe she's certainly knew only member and i do not know whether she had other employees you're on i'm not sure about that would like a secretary driving the car and covered potentially if a paralegal would go back to the old days when he had to drive to court to file something  that there would be a four o'clock filing or something and oh my gosh can you run this over to the to the courthouse and and the paralegal would be driving it i'd have to look at it i think that that mine include if they're occupying a covered vehicle in the course and scope it may provide coverage but i don't know what the facts of that would be well under under their theory the paralegal would be covered right in the bike on a saturday afternoon exactly i mean it it's some point you would just take it job with this even under the reformation there's no meeting in the minds and you have to have clear and convincing evidence what really was an issue here was adding sarah hirst individually when they added the policy c bought the lexus makes perfect sense that was in two thousand and seven for the next seven years every year you'd get the declarations page that would show the named insured is the yellow sea there is no evidence here that somehow there was some miscommunication or no meeting of the mines that did not result or that there was a mistake that had to be addressed to the contrary all the evidence is that that's the product that they purchased to cover the lexus that was purchased by the law office or you window that we disagree with you about that with regard to all done and miss her st how do you respond to your adversaries argument that the representation agreement allowed to read created concluding that mr all that and missed this mr all that in this hearst had the same understanding then you lose all the reformation theory well no then it just gets remanded for further proceedings and then we look at the evidence and we look at the authority would have to reverse and review it you'd have to reverse and remain we have to look at whether there actually was that authority certainly in this record we don't have it because it's immaterial so the rd argument h to do with the claim for attorney's fees which is allowed again the judge had addressed that under any argument it's reasonable for those reasons we request that the court affirm the district court's summary judgment order thank you very much we appreciate your arguments counselor excuse some cases in the