because we think that predicting what the colorado supreme court would do with the initial permission rule which essentially what this is about we think it's pretty simple and i think it's pretty easy based upon the case law that exists however i would affect all but again hopefully when i'm done everybody will see that perhaps that's not necessary but if there's a question certainly so so where we start from here the question is whether or not mr bennett bts is insured under the insurance policy issue by hearse hurts has several times over the years gone to the colorado courts st in a case called bulk amounts and then in the it's called metro property casualty versus hertz and now in this case and argue the proposition that it's rental contract can change the terms of an insurance policy and every time they have been rejected including by the colorado supreme court metro property and casualty vs charts  that initial permission rule is no longer applicable no your honor that is in fact the ruling that struck me and to that ruling i say ok so what so what that the law has changed so it is true which the rule sprang has changed has been revised isn't that relevant well your honor i'm going to submit to the court that the statutory that the public policy reasons for adopting the initial initial permission rule has not changed adult so the initial permission rule was adopted by the locals worth case in one thousand nine hundred and six according to the colorado no fault act and the colorado fallback the public policy behind it was not simply to avoid an adequate pretty clear that mr george the renter violated the rental contract but again those are two different lanes you have the rental contract and then you have the insurance and what i'm going to submit to the court is that as soon as you are an insurer whether you're a bad person or not  bad actor have done things that violate the rental contract you remain in insured and all of that is the real question in this case who is the insured the insurer it is in is is it hurts or hurts is the named endorsement well i would again i had to be well enough to help you i didn't mean no no i don't want to be technical here you hear i just thought that's but we have a liability policy that says who is an insurer that includes anybody who is using the vehicle with permission and that is colorado law that we have a door squints it cannot contradict colorado law and endorse and says we're going to add additional insurance didn't say we're taking away in an issue of exactly so our position is that we're still left with a policy that says anyone using the insured and quote also included quote renters and authorized drivers now let's go to renters renters would be the well under the indorsement it also includes the renter yes sir and arc attention is that under the original policy it also includes anyone using the vehicle with permission then the question is what does that permission what is the quality of that or permission and the wigglesworth case established in the colorado supreme court that the quality of that needs to be once you give initial permission than any other use whether it's a violating express permission because you're going to a drag general simply is acutely aware of the toll in human suffering and loss of life limb and property caused by the negligence operation vehicles the general assembly is also very much concerned with the financial loss visited upon innocent traffic victims by negligent motorists state to induce in occurred to all voters to provide for their financial responsibility for the protection of others and to assure the widespread availability to the insurance public insurance protection against financial loss caused by negligence irresponsible motorists and finally in colorado there is a strong public policy in favor of protecting tort victors this is fundamental purpose of the church's coverage whether or not the state next particular coverage mandatory to attend and i'm also going to side the considerations two of which have nothing to do with this particular argument about protecting tort victims and one thing i want to make sure that is clear about this is this has nothing to do with protecting the insured who buys insurance all public policy here is to protect the victims of automobile accidents because otherwise their medical care is going to go on the public dole it's better that it's that will i'm guessing that you're not arguing that regardless of what the statutes say that this court can say on our own that we agree disagree or want to go someplace else because of some public policy that we think is important that can't be the rule i'm arguing your honor that if you look at the public policy that drove the colorado supreme court to adopt wigglesworth almost twenty five years ago is the same public policy that exists today does wigglesworth say different and we still have mandatory insurance coverage which is the public policy to protect victims not to protect drivers and we're worth relies a lot on the buckle melts case you know i have both of me here somewhere but the public policy is in addition to that it's that a case by case inquiry would lead to proliferation of litigation that was a policy number one it was worth used to say we're going to adopt the initial permission policy number two is that it would promote the remedial effect oh policy number two is that for liberation of litigation which result in inconsistent results was kind of an administrative determination under wigglesworth and no fault of the payment or medical bills the other part of no fault was mandatory life billeted insurance to protect victims of auto accidents again two separate lands and so while the concept is that it would be easier to get your medical bills paid for the light bill insurance component doesn't matter at all and so again with those words the colorado supreme court said we're going to drop in this permission roll to administrative leave here and we're also promote the remedial effect of avoiding inadequate compensation to victims of the not accident and require people to buy insurance those things still exist today i guess i'm trying to get you to focus on the administrative easier part out with no focus on we now we're not or c and that it was one hundred percent on the liability question had nothing to do with making it easier to get medical bills but that whole scenario wigglesworth had nothing to do with that so it's honestly do we have do we have new law and do we have new law ten nash for a dash six hundred and eight c exemptions and it says that parts six shall not apply to any policy arising out of a motor vehicle rental agreement or any self insurance there meaning that we have an exclusion of the very situation before us no yada this was briefed in at and document number thirty eight also want to mention that the wide and exclusion that does not exist in the policy that whole business with respect to convert are one thing mario benevides was never accused of stealing a car but on top of that the statute says that insurance company may include these kinds of exclusions did not race did not include these exclusions in their policy and so therefore it was improper for the trial court to add this as a as an exclusion and to impart that exclusion court's reference to a converter was that is that what you're getting to yes your honor and then i just have to ask the court to also address the fact that the trial court made a factual finding that thirty days was unreasonable because that's now being used as alleged precedent to say that as a matter of law it's unusual and reasonable to only give an insurance company thirty days to respond but since the no fall back was  revised or repealed then these other laws essentially took the same place have the same sort of public policy and therefore there is no reason to make a through abandon or to assume that the supreme court would have banned in the the court holdings does not say that this statute dismissed number the samo talks about you i am policies and then it talks a little bit about the history of the transfer from the no fault act to the current act the so here's what you got hertz corporation has a policy of insurers through eighty's that po cards but she forgets or drugs yes or husband goes over and gets a rents the car present is a driver's license he is and in short under the endorsement correct husband you say is the husband insured yes for the wife's negligence that yes it will yes she's drive well he's insured on the policy but he's not driving so the question i believe would be is a wife  i want to know whether that's the next question but yeah he would never have got the husband st yes he would be insured but not for her to guage it right so you're saying yes sir so you would have us read then authorized driver  no no he has no authority to authorize a driver period no sir what i'm saying is under this policy what it says is author a reading from an authorized drivers means only those individuals all other all other drivers are an authorized including spouses except we're required by statute so what that means your honor is it you could don't present a valid if the other person wants drive a car doesn't present a driver's license and pay an additional nominal fee i think thirteen dollars of or something to cover both one hundred dollars a day i think you have to have a valid driver's license you have to show it to hertz you have to be authorized by hertz and in this case what happens is it as you well know someone rents a car he has the permission to and a license revoked driver's license shredded by the d m v not just suspended as a visual traffic in drugs alcohol crashes into the pla then that guy comes up to hers and goes hey where's my coverage and her says who are you and why are you here and what are you talking about and so then rental car because of the this law this new law by statute clear without any questions told us about the conditions in exclusions which is tuned for is not applied to any policy and that's the st part and it says arising out of a motor vehicle rental as they want to take the old no fault missive use is written in that no fault stature and that's why the courts say well let's talk about the statute and less move that over to the new law which  changed and added converters and changed in doesn't have that it was less grafted onto the law as a matter of public policy in the or oh i think what they're arguing is a little different that what they're saying is that the definition of that that those words in that act or broader than the act itself and that are basically still operative because of the present ok it cars are converter is a person other than named insured or resident relative or operates or using the motor vehicle in a manner that a reasonable person would determine was an authorised or beyond use sure but it's in a manner of a reasonable person would determine who's beyond the scope or permission so it modified and changed from the old no fault law and having it in to the fact is you have what does mr question this based on all the evidence there's no there is no it shouldn't you know it's of the jury yeah and that's just because we also have in the record his driving history where it was revoked with little traffic offender for all correction the district court made no such finding that it didn't apply to rental cars that's why we didn't brief and there is in fact an insurance policy so it doesn't matter whether it's required to be one or not there in fact is one and the case that talks about this mis numbering is at actual says you can't let somebody else use the car you don't have a drivers license etc that is not the law colorado and that is not in the insurance policy the permissive use law there is no longer colorado that says if you are conferred or you don't have insurance it says an insurance company may include that exclusion if they desire to and that was a statutory change after the no fall back right away they did not include that in this particular policy and so therefore it was error for the court impart that condition as a requirement of being an insurer and then of course that with all factors thank you thank you i think you will this is where your arguments this morning case is submitted