the property is the life insurance policy is a is this a case of when you see it's a non issue st impression st impression under new york law wrecked the property right issue here is the policy on the life of unfortunately and did anyone did from seeds to anyone not to my knowledge no i haven't disputed i don't believe that's in this you know i don't mean her knowledge but a right to curtail the property right of assignment of the property by having a provision in its policy that requires written satisfactory notice of an assignment  we well we don't have a record on this particular policy there is evidence from cases filed in the in a similar timeframe that all the others would not have accepted any written notice of an assignment of policy after the they ha two thousand and thirteen when breathless trustee made a premium payment to all the by wire that payment was rejected for insufficient funds and the bank had written a letter standing issue so the question becomes where did this rights come from the right to assign a policy it's a right that was recognized by the supreme court and grigsby the supreme court way back then in one thousand and eleven said insurance policy cannot be treated answering my question that this is a matter of new york law now you're referring to the supreme court so would you focus on new york law yet there is also a statute in new york which codifies groups view that's new york insurance law three thousand two hundred and three which says this any life insurance policy should be freely assignable now it's important to compare new york insurance or three to earth three which governs life insurance policies including the life insurance policy issue with new york insurance law three thousand two hundred and twenty which governs group life insurance polic now in the statute concerning group life insurance policy the legislature stated that the insurance company does have the rights to put restrictions on assignments and three thousand two hundred and three which governs the life insurance policy if you are not certifying i mean i think that's giving it consideration now i think that's a limit let me ask a couple of got some practical problems or practical questions i guess why couldn't you just york that if an individual wants to sue to collect on a policy which is different than what we did which is declaratory judgment that suit has to be brought within two years of the laps there is a statute new york that's as has been imposed in two years and now well i don't know what would happen if if this court decides that her brother does not have standing i don't know whether i will take the position that a new lawsuit would violate that plane no there is nothing there's nothing preventing us from finding an amended complaint although the amendment would be to name it we could do it but we could do it by naming mr butler as the plaintiff again after all the items in its own wisdom to clear that the policy had already lapsed so we might just find ourselves in the same situation this time arguing over whether satisfactory is a term that could be that could be enforced by all the three appellate division ninety four which considered assignment notice provisions in the context of in stock sale and held that failure to comply with the notice provisions of the stark agreement does not policy and so no we will take a look at live alone oh you will hear ok now good morning your honor is may please the court roland goss on behalf of apple leon's life insurance company in north america with me is christine stoddard this partner this policy provision the owner can transfer ownership to anyone at any time for any reason  no reason and allianz has no say in that absolutely not they can make any deal they want between them on the side about how to split up the death benefit but if they want to exercise rights under the policy the policy says we have to know because only the owner of policy can exercise a right to be don't want an interloper coming in and all of a sudden saying i now own a policy on that gentleman over there and i'm going to cash it in or whatever it's a simple notice provision all it says why does that opposed to the automatic invalidity it's not an invalidity issue it was a question on a motion to dismiss because under undisputed new york law only the owner of a policy can maintain an action policy one hundred in all understand that but i'm  sort of asking about the merits a little bit before we get to the standing well on the merits of thought depending upon who is the owner and can exercise the rights and judge for tell me out of here found they admitted that they didn't notify aliante of a change of ownership before they filed suit and under the precedence of these this court ownership and contractual standing as opposed to constitutional standing is determined they could except it's because the presence of this court power and hargraves cited page fourteen of our brief state that you determine contractual standing here who's the owner based on facts known at the time the lawsuit was filed now they could didn't ask to do that and here's the insurance company now with a payable eight million dollars benefit and it's being told different things as to who the owner is you could of course pay the proceeds into who funded the court until the owner decided well as far as i'm concerned they could to dismiss the lawsuit and according to our records miriam usual is the beneficiary and the owner we pay the person in our record if they have a signed agreement that they split it with each other that's fine that's up to them but that's not binding on us not burning on the insurance company has to go by the policy which is regulated ok the regulators are coming to come in and say did you pay the actual owner of the beneficiary designated by the owner yes or no and if we say no being notified as you said it could be on a napkin that ownership has been changed now it's a simple unilaterally i'm your perspective for now at this moment the assignment is ineffective because you have not received notice well they notice that you require because we didn't receive the notice required by the circuit for determining who the owner of the policy is for standing to or in a lawsuit and i'll go back to my question when you say the notice required by the circuit what is that notice what is the level of clarity that we've required and why is it that what we've sent batterers as opposed to what new york state court of appeals and says because under the policy and under new york law only the owner of a policy can bring a lawsuit on the policy which is what was done here when this lawsuit was filed the plaintiff was not according to all the answers records the owner of the policy was not authorized to bring that suit so we moved to dismiss notice is that right or wrong it's not a question of clarity is it invalidity there is a doctrine about anti assignment provisions for hitting assignments this is not that in fact the trust admitted on page twelve of his  respect to what was before well whether up whether a policy provision can prevent prohibit an assignment there is a very strict law as to circumstances under which an insurance company can prohibit an assignment that's not the case here we don't seek to prohibit an assignment we don't even involved in the clarity of the consequences of not providing us i think what we go which from the court of appeals which says it's ok for an insurance company to impose reasonable restrictions for the protection the parties on the transfer which is what we're doing here to make sure that the appropriate the intention of the owner of the contract is respected in in and there might be a nine hundred and twenty case on stock exchanges and start transfers rather but no new york on this issue what makes me the expert on new york law on this issue two things on the property side consent of insurance company to transfer only no property rights again so there's a law on that yes we would this is not that doesn't apply here and it's our position if you can require affirmative consent by the insurance company which is a discretionary act to transfer a policy what's the problem with requiring just a unilateral notification on the back of a napkin or whatever from the owner of a policy we don't see that there's if it was brought in by the record player who says i'm the owner of this policy you probably even get fancy service and even get a sheriff to serve it on our hands if it was a notification provided by the record owner of the policy right of the company and in the allegation said we have assigned or sold the policy to x i think that would satisfy the requirement the the owner who had it to the owner of record  two parts to the policy one is who's the owner of the policy and the other part of it is who is the beneficiary we are not arguing that the insurance companies entitled to receive proper notice of who the beneficiary is that's a different that's a different claim altogether  maybe within its rights to insist on a particular type of notice in order to in order to determine clearly who the beneficiary is before it pays it out and it's if they don't get that notice they'll have to interpreter or make a payment at their own risk but that's not the issue here the issue here who is the owner of the owner's not the one that collects on the policy is the beneficiary so they'll never be this idea that the owner would change without all the answers notice and then would have to pay two we've cited some decisions obviously nothing on an insurance law that we found but that there are provisions to require notice to the city before you can bring a suit against the city and that a complaint would satisfy that that  notice in certain instances so there is the concept out there that a notice in a complaint can service as notice and there's no reason why it's not now we do we do take allianz argue and seriously that is not notice from the pri so there is an understanding there that the courts of explain why they were an insurance company want to know who the risk is with a life insurance policy the risk always remains exactly the same it's the insured who was there from day one thank you thank you both