hit by another driver when the accident is entirely the fault of the other driver hundred percent her fault if the other driver is under insured can play with claim under insured motors coverage based on that accident that no wonder insurance motor scrubbers right right all right now this one is going to sound a little ridiculous but i'm just looking at the language of the policy what if plaintiff is driving her own vehicle and she's hit by another borrowed from recovering under the plain language so that policy if the other drivers uninsured or under insured since clearly evans is operating a motor vehicle i know it sounds ridiculous but the language in the policy only i mean it says it is a gray we shall not be liable under this policy while any motor vehicle is operated by clinton's i think first and foremost the first har with respect to my example with respect to the under insured noticed in that case is there anything in the policy definitions which defines any motor vehicle as any motor vehicle in which plaintiff is a passenger you know but i suppose under the second example hate to cut you off but i suppose under the second example you're left with the fact that state farm probably would not deny coverage but you know what we're trying to learn look at first the plain reading of the statute and i think yes it affects public policy i don't see anything in i'll be broke if i haven't been blunt enough already i think i see nothing in that clause that would at least prevent that that would in any way prevent state farm from in your first example like you vote you've even admitted where he's driving in the other drivers one hundred percent liable sheet you know she can't go after her uncle are not under insured motorists coverage you you said that that clause would prevent bed but even the ridiculous example i gave made wouldn't go anywhere but there's nothing in the clause or the contract w  i don't think this is this says anything do what you said you said it wouldn't matter of clint evans was if the other driver was one hundred percent level in the first example you said it would be mine and i i don't yes and that's true because of settled for policy limits of twenty thousand dollars by you know most of the insurance twenty thousand dollars the they pay the complete portion of their early pay the policy limits on a case and isn't good luck now for for four decades so i don't i don't think that's all that i don't think it's significant but we we speak to that issue do justice in our brief and just because the that caused by mr mr  she is required to have under insured motorists coverage but the say that someone is required to have under insured motorists coverage means that they are a little less and circumstance is hatcheries of the law you can look it for example the villa the public policy i'd be elated by this for an american excess versus really this is the same public policy that she's right here it's not the public policy in radius was to protect the general public it was meant to protect the general public when they want a party to the contract and they had no decision in the contract this is exactly the opposite situation here miss t which she was a passion she was a passenger if she had not been a passenger in the car i think all of one justice thomas question if you were driving her own car and he was driving another car and was under insured she's you're in pursuant to the statute she also got a hundred thousand dollar live uninsured r c you know it hundred thousand dollars uninsured policy in other words she offered the same coverage to everybody on this she did off into the weeds on all the minutia hope i didn't do that too much in my brief but i but for today i want to sort of refocus on a few basics i think this is this case i think can be decided on four primary things question with mr stevens right yes you know i'd like to take it from the other direction let's let's use my ridiculous example it's it's ridiculous because i don't think it was the intent of st and before you started with the last question i just asked mr parker explain how that how that would work if your argument is that he would be fluid but anyone else put make an underinsured claim and on the backs  but doesn't that seem different than her agreeing to exclude any uninsured motorist goes against mr evans if she doesn't know he's going to be in that intersection of that time if it's a different actual situation  we have here where she got into the car but there's no question justice as a different actual situation and there's no question that i wish she didn't ask you very well thank you that's a tough question to answer but but i have to