move so it seems to me that the policy says what the policy said well let me address that because i can see your concern on that issue first of all on the reformation point there was not no notice to leader that this was going to be a theory of liability in the opening statement if you go back and look at what was in council argued he said nothing about this theory that he's wrong on leader at the end of the case  well this is my point that there is no ambiguity that requiring extremes of governance because it's such an obvious typographical error within the context of the policy california law specifically says even where the language is clear it cannot be applied if it creates an absurdity and that's exactly what would happen here if you don't ignore what's an obvious typo now particular definition and you're giving uninsured motorist coverage for accidents with insured vehicle no one's ever heard of a policy like that it makes no sense second you have to look at this since companies are titled sensible well you have to look at this particular provision in light of the statutory scheme because this language this requirement that the policy have uninsured motor if the insurance company intended to give a greater degree of coverage they would have to have two definitions that have to have the one that tracks the statutory language and then they'd have to have the separate vision that has the greater coverage that supposedly they wanted to get but during the trial itself on all the mistakes he made during the hand this policy and tweaking her about her policy language being bad but there was never an assertion that this was going to be the theory of liability presented to the jury and when it came up during the discussion of again counsel objected during the argument itself and again was overruled the idea of so many instruction i think is really a red herring because there really wasn't an instruction just a minute if the jury had not been told about this  interpretation there was no need to counteract that with the with an instruction and that's what our counsel asked for please don't let this argument the surge of the jury it's a row yesterday and it was it was at the point where the judge said no i think horrendous was and because if the language means something different than what counsel argued as a matter of law the interpretation of a written contract under california law is an issue for the court not for the jury to decide jur aren't competent to interpret contracts especially one here but you can read this line well anyone can read it and that was what was so suspicious about this because in fact counsel argued to the jury you don't need to be a lawyer to argument which was very simple you know you can look at this language it says the opposite of what you'd expect in a policy and you should have been get they should have given this uninsured motorist coverage for an accident with an insurer vehicle that's the kind of policy nobody's ever heard of an athlete or didn't intend to g but the jury could very easily and probably did say this is a theory on which we can base liability in fact during the punitive damages phase opposing counsel said to the jury i'm sure that's the basis for your finding a mouse oppression and fraud so  i think you could probably make a fairly good picture that it was kind of miserable to him to avoid paying fifteen thousand dollars which is basically not very much  first with respect to the standard of review this court standard review in a diversity case the court of appeal first to the district court on the for patient a state law unless the district cour an issue of insurance policy interpretation first of all because the leader in this case did not request any jury instructions that the jury must interpret the policy in a way that now argues on appeal that the policy should what leaders counsel said at that time this is the court province the courts duty to instruct the jury and this was in the middle of a discussion of jury instruction so in essence this is an issue of jury instruction leader never argued at the district court level that the court should give a jury instruction as it is now saying the policy should be interpreted in fact there was never an argument made at the trial court level that there was a typographical error or mistake and as early as that time and of course leader knew having issued the policy that this was what the language of the policy was and not testify that there was a mistake she in fact testified that she disregarded the language of the policy in the handling of the claim so there's no f the trial there's no absurdity here either the uninsured merge coverage required by the california statute law in five eighty point two specifically states that the coverage must be included in the policy must be offered to insur perfectly consistent with that the increase in absurdity because the insurance company can of course offer more coverage then is required by the statute so in other words there's no obvious mistake or there's no mistake whatsoever here and there was jury not only was the evidence before the jury it was the undisputed evidence or stipulated this is our policy this is the language of the contract what was once counsel was doing was simply saying this is the length of the contract this is how it  was applied and ignored in this case and we also had testimony from keith charleston who was plaintiffs in a police expert witness testifying to the fact that it was in bad was an act of bad faith for the insurance company to disregard the language of the policy the companies the is the author of the policy it's the one that gets the policy to the california department returns for viewing it and it's the one that issued the policy and has to stand behind its promises and the only argument is made that the been made here is that fact that leader is an alabama insurance company relied on the advice of his counsel in the handling of the uninsured motorist claim here and  first the court has to disregard leaders brief which simply purports to cite the record as a whole rather than addressing only the evidence which supports the verdict and disregarding any evidence which is contrary to the finding of the jury third prong of that first of all the attorney that leader retained was not an expert on uninsured motorist coverage had never in his entire practice advised an insurance company that my colleague raised is that there was no evidence of despicable conduct in this case and this goes to the evidence of what this is going to go to the issue whether there was any evidence in the record contradicted or on contradicted which was the court the jury's finding that leader to ninety four and as counsel acknowledged this the jury was specifically instructed that this was the standard that's to be met there had to be with respect to the issue of malice or had to be despicable hind in conscious disregard of  e kind of must be find despicable by ordinary decent people that in this case was the jury the individuals the men and women who heard all the evidence heard the testimony heard leaders explanations and excuses but in fact it was much much more than that as that as the jury found we have we leave hensley specifically disregarding the language of the insurance policy because she didn't like it she connected she was managing agent and therefore her acts are attributable to the company she conducted no investigation and in fact told her attorney to conduct no investigation so they were never found the facts that would have supported the payment of policy when  son who had no health insurance could not pay or medical benefits leader was the person that she looked to but she contracted with so that in the event of an auto accident she would have money to pay her medical expenses from the time of the accident s and leader in this case acted with with no concern whatsoever for the consequences of its refusal to take the policy benefits the consequences of that to carry osborne and the reason it did was to save  lost wages when she was in an accident it is a very that completely they say told their attorney do nothing you know investigation you know legal research they can see all the policy language which obligated to make  and insurance company with with both considerable resources both able to both be able to retain attorneys and fight for themselves as for the case where a very vulnerable woman suffered serious injuries and couldn't get the insurance coverage that she paid for i'd also like to briefly address the issue of the jury instruction  that they did not know that she did not have medical coverage for any of the of these harms they did not know that she was not getting the medical care that she needed because she didn't have this money the thing that prevented this money from being paid even it doesn't even need her help correctly analyze this  as an uninsured rather than underserved motors claim the thing that prevented that immediate payment from being made was opposing counsel who filed a motion to consolidate the arbitration and the trial on the next in this case normally in an uninsured motorist case you have a quick arbitration to decide what's the liability of the different parties and the money gets paid here leader couldn't make that determination in arbitration because the council moved to consolidate with the trial on the merits and so until the trial was held later didn't know whether thanks good luck