so if we're ready to proceed i'll call the case of the state of phyllis melton versus wells fargo and berkshire ha and get you to address this quote from price stall so this is what priced also has the insured subjective intent perpetrating a life insurance policy is not the relevant inquiry the relevant n koreans who procured the policy and whether or what the court is saying is that as it had said several times already in the opinion and ensure it can take out a policy with the intent to transfer it to a rd party investor but the limit on that right the court says i think the cents and seventy five the limit on that right is that the insured has to be the decision to determine who prepared the policy we look at who pays the premiums so it seems like the delaware supreme court is saying the you just basically look at who the a the premiums and that determines who prepared the policy allows that loan allowances or to find that the insured hasn't paid the premiums or isn't obligated to pay the premiums and i don't think that's that's correct and for one thing premium financing is expressly authorized under teller law it's often used because it's beneficial to understands the fact that the mortgage is not rigorous doesn't mean that you're not obligated to pay a for the house where i live the more is are recourse so i guess i'm not really i don't think i'm asking a very difficult question  obligated if the premiums ultimately because of the market downturn she had to really see that but i think it's quite clear from the transaction documents that she was obligated to use them all the time that's how that's how the phrase also understood benefit during her life from that anyone for taking out this policy she wasn't given any any payment or anything like that if she did receive insurance during the period during which  i have a similar question and so i doubt they got understand it but you correct me if i'm wrong about the way this supposed to work i mean so so she was basically she was getting the financing to purchase the policy and she was basically betting at the end of this purchase agreement i'm going to be able to sell this policy for more than it's worth more or less i want to be able to sell it for something there was a market downturn and it turns out she couldn't sell it for something to make any stoli or not is that deep is your position that's definitively going to be answered by the delaware supreme court in the you know the other action whether that's true or question and you think it's very likely that the nd question the nd certified question is will be answered in a way that affects this case i think that question basically asks whether delaware law forbids a transaction that is defined by the terms of the question to be  to end up in the hands of somebody who would rather see the insured dead than alive d that is any legal transaction under delaware law and this is the main holding a price call is very clear rangers can't get your policies court says to determine who procured the policy we look at who pays the premiums and to me it should just be a fact issue about who strokes the check that went to the insurance company to pay the premiums so who wrote i mean who were the checks come from to pay the and the money to pay the premium went from apparently was southbank right to the insurance company american general mrs malkin your honor never had the money to pay this premium statute that specifically says that insurers can use premium financing and and so is there something unique about this transaction that would suggest that the premium financing and this transaction looking at this company as dead and really the argument that the interest is trying to put together here this this only if you had a few things need to be said about that number one it's not an ar argument would  stowing policy but you are seeking to get the benefits of the policy just to add i mean this is just sort of a high level question i guess just sort of explain to me how that would be the case if we were to say thoughts about that but i'm not sure i agree with judge cook's resolution that is as much as i admire her so what's the best way to sort that out as you know the let the concerning  horizon affirmative defense for certain defendants in those actions rights of actions and an affirmative answer is don't don't conflict and they they're simply applying together the affirmative answers incorporated into the right of actions i think that's the way to resolve that question with respect to the question whether could be touched by the dollar supreme court in answering those questions i think that is one of the if if the if this court has doubts about how to apply the u c c you thinking about twenty seven for being here i do think that certification would be appropriate especially since to pay back the loan for that nobody could say that in that circumstance of the insured hasn't changed as unpaid the premiums the only reason the miss morgan was unable to realize her intent to do just that here was that as we presented evidence there was a market downturn  was unable to do so so asking only whether in the end she ended up being out of pocket for the premiums i think would make the true interest her non happenstance to what ends up happening you know a couple years down the road to do it to conditions that have nothing to do with the party his understanding