opportunity to do this may please the court i'm tom going to camp i'm here on behalf of the walker family the walker family were in shirts of state farm and this case involves an excess insurance policy and  involves whether or not you know an uninsured motorist coverage was offered to this family on their florida vehicles and this case is completely on all fours with the prior case  before this court by the name of stroke check in and strode check you certified this exact question back to the florida supreme court the florida supreme court ruled on it ruled in our favor and this case is fa is my terminology so thoroughly altered as to have been delivered or issued in florida and i was like a new policy right this is a really interesting part about stroke chat that honestly i'm a cite to my partner who really figured this out because when i first read stroke check and i believe in the briefing you'll see it they talked about the fact that was a new policy and the florida supreme court went through a lot of effort to determine that the masterpiece policy created a new policy the importance had nothing to do with the question that's before this court about uninsured voters covered actually what was going on there is the district court had recognized that the family that the stroke check family at rejected uninsured motorist coverage originally when the access policy was issued originally so the importance of that the new policy was then presented to the stroke checks and it wasn't sentence florida the first time but at that time when the insurer voluntarily changed their format they incorporated both the access and the primary into a single policy at that point the florida supreme court pointing that out because then they needed to get a new rejection so in that case the family had actually rejected uninsured motorist coverage but then the florida supreme court went to great lengths to point out that a new policy was issued triggering the need for a new rejection really does it have any do with this case because in this case the family always accepted uninsured motorist coverage on all three underlying policies answered your question are you following what i'm saying i'm not sure i mean i guess what i thought anyway i took away from stroke jack is that it sort of i don't know a lot to tally of the circumstances multi factor analysis about just sort of like how how changed is the policy you know sort of with respect to the people named on the policy the sort of language in the policy the insurance risks and the policy sort of how florida centric has this thing become this is this is the the difference between the public policy exception argument and what we're really arguing here today which is the application of this specific florida statute and it really boils down to the difference between a insurance policy and a primary insurance policy so i'll give you an example if i'm a north carolina resident ny purchase a north carolina primary policy i also purchase a north carolina access policy but then i that question so earlier i may go to florida the car's going to move i may get a ford for three months but it's still in north carolina car it's still registered insured primarily in the north carolina but if i then take that vehicle to florida register in insurance on a florida primary policy the access policy is like a backpack it follows the primary policies the state pharmacy side it deal with the florida pala deal with eight primary policy because the primary pulse was issued in that state the accident happens in florida or another state and then you get into the  ysis of were these people really connected enough with florida that the insurer knew they were really florida people and really should be dealing in florida law different with the access pulse because he sure knows this is a florida vehicle for people because it's insured in florida and the access policy is providing that coverage so that policy insurance company knows because they're insuring the primary is there anything yes there was an e mail exchange between state farm and our clients where state farm characterized were said we're going to treat this as a mailing address change but then they added this is state residents meaning to residents north carolina in florida duress didn't say that's a word they used they need to comply with north carolina and florida law but yes they did say that but the point that i would make and it's very important that the walkers at the time of this accident had three vehicles all their vehicles insured in florida under floor insurance policies with state farm they still are not insured properties in north carolina did they not at that time if they did and i'm not sure because it's not specifically delineated in the access policy i believe it was just a rental property at that point in time and that umbrella policy was issued in north carolina originally yes and that the state farm agent in north carolina explained to mrs walker that she needed to get a policy in realized that it was going to cost him more money that is that was not on the record that is not in the record the only thing that's in the record is that they were told over north carolina agent wants to keep servicing your excess p which is now they were not shopping around they purchased uninsured motorist coverage on every policy of insurance they have just just as a matter i know the public policy exception is not before this court but just as a matter of policy when we're looking at this case and we know we could be setting a precedent here where should the obligation rest in an ambiguous situation like this well there's there's two things i would say that this is not a precedent the precedents already exist the strip check cases at all of course it's been answered by the four he said that was a brand new policy according to according to site farm that was a new policy instr issued and delivered in florida was it not but that is not the reason why that is brought up in that decision the reason why it was brought up in that decision that this was a new policy is because under the previous policy they had rejected rejected uninsured but they did legally different issue and they did not have that opportunity to reject so when the new policy came out they weren't presented with a no other opportunity but that's not what the stroke check case and also the and i say one every time in a rack in iraq cases which are true which follow the language of the statute says issued for delivery or delivered in florida the policy in our case was delivered in florida was physically the reporter was mailed to them in florida the access policy and more importantly the issue for delivery is accomplished by what i've just been telling the court that when a car is insured in florida with the florida policy and there's an access policy somewhere else in the country anywhere else in the country or in florida they must offer uninsured motorist because that access policy insurance companies aware of the primary they're aware that the excess coverage is covering that florida policy and the statute requires and because they are providing that coverage or tracking that coverage to offer the uninsured benefits or agree got your argument mr  apply contact based risk based analysis and determining choice of law when it comes to insurance contracts they've also held clearly that as it becomes to auto insurance policies including uninsured motorist and that in florida supreme court cases we're that florida fall as likes loci contract us florida's got a lot of people in and out sort of like the walkers they're sort of live in florida they're sort of not they've got places the they are snowbirds florida does not want to deal with the scenario where you have to analyze where the different risk and everything is that's very clear is it issued and delivered in florida there is an exception as should try pointed out there is a narrow public policy exception that public policy exception was litigated below and the court found that the net the public policy exception did not apply i actually agreed with our character characterization of state farm's argument in the reply it is our position that in florida you for florida law to apply on the choice of law provision choice of law it's either shouldn't delivered in florida or public pollock's exception now what they're trying to argue is that is that somehow the stretch back and out and i would argue it's not anywhere close to being on point that the stroke chaat decision which was before the florida supreme court roach decision that somehow that's an additional exception but the florida supreme court has itself spoken through chuck so we don't need to try to interpret was stretch access the florida supreme court in broach in two thousand and six said very clearly and it talks about stretch back at least three times that in stroke it was a florida issued and delivered policy and that therefore it was a quote straightforward application of l local rule now the roach court says that and that instruct chat it contained it was a new insured it was the widow it was a new policy and it was a contained florida policy terms and florida issued signatures so it was a florida policy then again the florida senate and then again after that we have a first decision which this court can look at also as instructive on florida law north carolina issued and deliberate policy in fact that way it's for the question judge wilson you asked about whether the risk at the time there absolutely were a risk at the time at the time of the accident two thousand and fifteen they had a a homeowner's policy on the plantation drive address in wilmington north carolina they had a rental policy in white road in north carolina they had and they were dealing with state farm they had u d the north carolina dresses they had been using there north carolina this is an umbrella policy it's not a policy that ensures specifically adinda fide cars it's a policy that provides access liability three so in fact there was a determination that state farm had not been notified it did not have notice of a permanent residence change of the walkers so that and that has not been appealed they've not appealed  change of circumstances of the risk and the primary residence well first off that's trying to restate the public policy exception that's trying to say we don't have to do it you can come up with a different exception because there analysis it doesn't follow a how many cars were here how many homes were here how many boats were here because it's either public policy exception or it is issued in delivered and there is court found that there was not a new policy this was a policy term that had basically the only thing that it changed scuse me the only thing that it changed was a mailing address which florida law makes very clear does not do anything  you know it was just it was a pure access policy issued into living in the state of north carolina in fact i would even draw your this court's attention to the rondeau decision which is a different they were applying flor law in that case the fact that it was issued and delivered in florida the court said that was determined they could care less where the fact that the car was registered and delivered in another state that wasn't the issue and the issue is where was it issued  leopard one of the other come questions were on the public policy to a drought you asked about that i think the public policy of florida has been set forth by the florida supreme court in the roche decision and that is that florida is not going to allow itself to be in a situation where judges are required to evaluate the various different where the different potential risk and where are the different locations the people are whether they're in three months or six months or seven months they're not going to do that it's a very straightforward issued and delivered and our public policy of perception we know the public parks obsession does not apply here we this was a policy issued and delivered in the state of florida i also take issue with the idea that somehow that the sixty seven seventy seven somehow has a different public policy and that that somehow would change the choice of law provisions because roche again was a it was a policy that was a case till it was sixty seven seventy seven so it was a brian and so we know for sure that that that that's not a however we have the statute here and we think this amre case the florida supreme court said we're going to make it simple for you look at the florida supreme court case answering this court struck chalk certification the florida supreme now it is a lex loci contract us analysis that's all you need to know and then when you read the ropes decision the roche is right on point roach makes it very clear that stretch back was clearly a like slow  and there is no determination that any changes are made in the florida terms in anything else this is a floor of new north carolina policy that had been a fax is two thousand and one which was ensuring the walkers who had not notified state farm of any permanent change for which risk were underlying risk or both in north carolina and florida it should be construed according to north carolina law and under north carolina law and under the terms of the policy there are no  it's again state farm wants to talk about the public policy exception to lex loci contracts that is not what's at play here that is at play when you're dealing with primary insurance policies and excess insurance policy incorporates by reference if you will the primary insurance policies it's the shortest policy written it just says if you if you have liability on the arm policy we will pay in addition if you have liability under that crummy policy which is why stroke check is decided the way it is it's a access policy it is why you need is directly on point this exact question has already been answered so let me just ask you this because i think i'm just not understanding the sort of the ships passing in the night are about whether straight track is on point or not because i mean as i've as i reviewed stroh tack it seemed to me that there were significant differences because there you had it you know  a different policy number of florida specific policy terms florida signatures different coverage issued in the name of the different insured in here you have none of that stuff you have it mailed to a florida address but that's about all you original policy they had rejected on intrade motors so without a new policy they never would have reached the question this court asked them which is if you insure a car in florida does the excess have to offer you an interim motors that questions answered yes and stroke check does not require that if you read it does not require anything more than that occurring now in this case we've got more it was mailed here important to their residents by the way there's no doubt these people were for citizens under the i r s florida got they were floored citizens everything they could do to have residency they had homestead voter's registration all their cars all their cars and we're not sure about homeowners it's specific the statute is specific with respect to automobiles when you have been on no below insured in florida and in excess policy is providing liability coverage they are going to require that liability that excess insurer to offer the u m p that's required on the primary whether that policy was issued before or after it needs to offer it and that's what the statute says that was a question asked and think we've got your arguments and thank you counsel and court is adjourn