workers comp premiums for the far cry from those cases where we have a concerted conscious effort by the insurance company to cancel mr the cells non cancel policy he had a period of time where he received disability could retroactively cancel a policy where he it had voluntarily waive the premium payments on in violation of california law which requires a thirty one day grace period because that's what the policy states he was entirely proceeding forward now see if i am have my hands around the basic facts correctly your client had a disability income policy with th  carrier right correct he became disabled notify the company and they made a determination that he was in fact disabled and began to do two things number one and paid the past premiums and began to pay premiums would he have been reinstated under the terms of the policy he would have been he would have had a right to be instated that is the plaintiffs and the appellant's view on the california court of california law but i think if you read the letter and the fact that they failed to even be able to file your request with a response i think a reasonable jury could conclude with from that that it was a done deal that this insurance company had seized the opportunity to get rid of this in insured and be done with them once and for all and the only way that they were going to consider reinstatement of the policy which had had not lapsed in california law would be if he prevailed on his appeal you know my understanding is your client responded to the notice with insurance company and distilling it down to a sentence said making it impossible for him to perform the necessary substantial beauties of his profession to the carrier task for a physician's statement in connection with that second point well that's interesting your honor what they did was we object to that we want you to submit the claim with that portion of the claim which then brings us into the into another violation of california law which is insurance fraud section five five three which plainly states that when a proof of loss a submitted but there's not a timely objection to something in the proof of law that the insured has within its power to correct such as running over to the doctor and claim you know the defendant then they really need not the doctor sent it in it was not contained in the claim file and no one took the doctor's deposition this case had a lot of events happening collaterally that  your other cases went up on appeal to see what happened and i think i think both letters said that your honor my recollection is correct i think the second letter face you're referring to also cited by the way you know the jury found you not to be focus on something which i think really as i stand back and look at the groups hasn't really see receive the attention that it deserves and i think it's a very straightforward issue and i apologize for not giving it this emphasis before but we all know go forward basis or potentially even the tender of the premiums during the waiver of premium period and the question at this point is i mean that's a fact there was never a payment of premium ever attempt here on the pain premium and what  is the ramification of that on the speed of fact i think the root of the response your opponent either has or would have to that not be interested in your rejoinder is that he when he another has been the purpose of sending a notice for premium is to do just that provide notice let somebody know what is the amount that is due in this case there is no doubt as found by the trial court as to the amount due or when it was due it was specified in the policy so to the extent that they want to rely upon well we couldn't pay or we were somehow prevented because of a lack of notice is wishful thinking at best and the trial court made a specific finding against that and saying that the fact that you didn't receive notice certainly didn't prevent you and that leads me your honor to the point that i was going towards and that is with respect to the nonpayment  premium we know that if there's no payment a premium a last excuse there's no insurance so is there an excuse for nonpayment what do we have grounds for stoffel that would be a typical basis and that's kind of hinted that at many different places within the opening  was required practice of your client to send premiums i believe routinely back in one nine hundred ninety two on a once annual basis premium notice this would be sent i believe that but that's not in the record your honor i can tell you this that it is explicitly not required in the policy and i can also cite you to cal isn't california law that if whether it's in the policy or not that if the carrier establishes a practice of doing that the insurer can rely on i think the insurer can rely upon your honor but i want to choose my words very carefully can rely because that's what i was talking about a stop or just moment in this case there was no reliance he characterization of what that letter says but at best that is a promise to pay and offer to pay it's not actual payment and what that leads to your honor i do want i don't want to go with mr i want to come back to the  me it may bother the other you judges we don't confer prior an argument and then you can tell me where my thought patterns on this are and are going on are wrong we're required since this is a summary judgment grant to view the evidence in the issue please take me back because i do want to address exactly what's on your mind here if you take a look at that exchange what the attorney for the insurer is saying is that point is that seville and we will pay and what is the consequence of the fact that nothing was sent does that excuse the obligation to pay because that's a fact that we're left with there wasn't a response to that did the letter alternatively did the letter from the attorney to the insurance company create an obligation to send out of billing statement and the answer is it didn't and that's why i was anything in the policy or anything in california law that says or any law period that says because the dreams come true that's correct then but i mean let me be very specific about that a request for a bill and the failure to send a bill does not and one take it to the logical conclusion does not excuse the duty to pay that's the issue here and it's really not so much of a factual issue your honor as it is a legal issue i believe that if there was some conduct because the background for all of this is there was nothing the record does confirm that there was no conduct there was nothing that prevented the insured when ever the insured wanted to to simply write out a premium check go exactly what was specified in the policy schedule no doubt no mistake he didn't have to include the last five years or we could have out of an abundance of caution for how much premiums that were waived for a long period of time that's one interpretation your honor and worst case analysis what you would have to do is to go back to this all specified year by year in the policy exactly how much you pay and worse on worst case analysis he would have tended to check for that ok but make sure that it's meaning is look we waive the premiums before on this basis those are gone yes now you're going to have to pay premiums and the policies he gets and frankly were i believe that to be the case and as a matter of fact the district court did as well ok but isn't that a pretty good read and then for the letter sanjay tell us how much we have to pay in other ways or you and what i would point out of that regard your honor is this is that we are speculating at this point in time we are speculating as to whether or not there was any genuine confusion or any confusion at all on a part of the insured we are speculating as to why is it didn't they pay and let me point out this very important what if and i guess the take to get into what is but it does illustrate the point here the situation that we have actually not of what if at all it is the actual factual situation we have where the insured scholz voluntarily chose to do nothing to make no payment now the question at this point time is for what period of time do you go one year five year and years what is fifteen years down the road there's been no tender of premium and now he's reached a sixty five where the policy ends this he's going to retroactively stand in a prayer at this point in time to there is no point that i'm trying to make is that under the scenario as viewed by the insured that i'm excused from payment because i said send me a bill and you didn't send me a bill so i have misunderstanding protection and i want to be very clear about what the insurance companies saying here is this we have taken the position as we already described to you in our december three one nine hundred ninety seven letter that your policy lapsed because of the jury turns out that you were disabled and you're entitled to waiver of premium and then that's what they call a potential claim then we'll give the current claim for the retention but all are saying there is that the basis for the lapse i e you're not disabled the jury finding hence you're not entitled to a further waiver of premium all they are saying is here is if that gets upset on appeal then we have to look at things again in light of what the it's not saying don't pay us any premiums forget about our december third one nine hundred ninety seven letter it says none of those things assist them because we recognize that you have an appeal of the adverse jerusalem and will have to be guided what was it that the insured was prevented from doing in this case because unilaterally the insurer under this policy has the right to keep the policy forever the insured simply has to do one thing and that is pay the premiums this is a guaranteed removal policy that's part of the obligation there's no what ifs ands or buts about and the attorney representing the climate at the time knew that he references that in the letter this and all they had to do was to pay the premium at this at that point in the company would have no choice but to remove up to age sixty five there was nothing that prevented the insurers from doing that rather i think the insurer intentionally refrain from doing so and engaged in a gamble which sets up the situation of indefinite coverage into the future circumstances of this case your honor although it wasn't for some type of excuse for equitable relief or whatever or some type of mistake there's no mistake there's no misrepresentation there's no detrimental reliance there's no waiver what reason is there for the insured not to do the one thing that unilaterally the insurer can do to guarantee coverage and in this case there was not and understood they intentionally chose to gamble on policy as he had an absolute right to do under california law so it's not a question of what is this insurance company doing you know how can we ascertain what their intent is what those documents show is that number one there is a computerized system number two that there is a policy that the company has to send out premiums and number three that this supervisor intentionally interfered with that now if that notice would have gone out and dr purcell would not have paid the premiums then i wouldn't have a leg to stand on if dr purcell would have gotten a response to his letter saying what do i owe i don't understand your position from your you know from your letters that i think the average person would find to be at least ambiguous and that no response and said you all this and he would have said i'm not going to pay it i'm going to take my chances on the appeal i wouldn't have a leg to stand but given the facts of this case you given california law given what the insurance companies intent was as manifested by those two documents i think that that the trial court heard it should be reversed and remanded thank you i want to feel about for a letter of by this court meaning the policy as to what an occupation is unemployed person is not an occupation i mean would render having a disability policy when you were on when you had a period of  and then then your week you know then the policy is reinstated because a very found that that in their opinion are not the same one when you have met the criteria for disability that that particular insurance company has set forth for a period of five years  say you know you don't have an occupation you know now that now that you have another disability we're not going to pay you so you continue paying premiums because your policies mean you haven't played any premium i understand but argued is submitted for decision thank you both will proceed to the last case on the calendar which is prince against  my name is terry carr america represent george