begins and ends with washington's insurance consumer protection statutes and how washington courts have applied those statutes to advance washington strong public policy protecting insurance cost consumers and innocent victims  insured drivers when tim also purchased the q b elijah insurance policy issue in this case he was a single man living alone and had them for many years he signed a waiver drunk driver who didn't carry sufficient short lived billing insurance to pay for is damages the dispositive issue in this case is whether this waiver is a waiver of a nonexistent fam protection coverage or instead a waiver of washington statutory under insured motorist coverage there are many issues and arguments presented in this case that deserve attention we're going to focus my limited time here on three main points first is the very high standard imposed by washington law or written new i am waivers the second is to ease waiver in the meaning of the plain language of the in conscious that by mr often it is inconsistent with any other interpretation than intent to weigh all those standards are taken directly from recent washington case law now the first topic is want and got this from various insurers they had no intent to buy you and coverage and there's no coverage in the policy there was no coverage in the decorations pages and the argument was that the intent was clear if you employ or did not intend to buy you an coverage and scream or said that's not good enough intent may be clear but there is no written waiver therefore under washington statutes there is you encouraged impose on the  that mr also lives alone did not have a family and he reads this waiver and says you can buy family protection against under insured motorists bottle injury well he didn't have any family to protect by buying th coverage which as your honor points out you pay extra for so he didn't buy a fake and the reason the high standard imposed by washington was important here is that all of these cases you have clear individual or family protection that would have been ok that would be a very different case absolutely with you i am you don't need a family to protect you from the other driver not having enough insurance that doesn't protect your family have a chance you know what you're saying is like that if we find that the reference  this waiver but it's a piece of paper that was provided by q b eat i think the question in this case is whether or not it effectively works to waive the coverage in this case pay it provides coverage for a person who qualifies as an injured person has a relationship to the car it doesn't require an eye toward fees or it's a no fault provision that's allowed for the person the so if you give this or something moves of the first it's possible i'm trying to progress from one to the other but i'm not very successfully making that move all i'm trying to point out first is that we have three separate boxes in one box avenue with pip we have two boxes check wall i'm saying now is in regard to the word family doesn't belong in the argument in regard to you i am the word family belongs in the argument it's in there so then i have three points to make about about that number one is i don't believe it's ambiguous even with the with the word family in there number two is that we use we use extrinsic evidence helped answer this question under washington law and number three is and this is not an argument that was in our brief in fact our brief said something different about this but the argument is that this application itself can be an ambiguous waiver a rejection and let me say why i'm going to start with the third the application the rejection is not required to be in any specific form it's required to be in writing that's all if you take a look at the application itself the application s it says personal injury protection no dollar amount rejected under george moderates b i p d nogal are rejected as to each where there are coverages included it says include and where there's no cover each separately so that where you don't have to reject it there's no cover just says no coverage that is the clear rejection now there's nothing at all affecting that it's a clear rejection of those coverages she didn't want to pay a premium for the sta for only a few minutes at the agent when he came in to buy it he paid no premium for it and on top of that he had a policy that came out which specify the exactly what those coverages were under washington law he no time understanding it according to his own own testimony he did not ask any questions it says here i understand this and i sign it and i reject all the stuff that he checks those boxes now mean once that to say that he understands there is a kind of coverage that does not exist in this world there is no such thing as coverage only for family members as to which would pay a premium never existed never will exist so far as i know and he's saying i just there i think the reason it got in there first of course we can tell you that was the name of the insurance to somebody and they put it in there yes it's if that were family weren't in there we wouldn't be here to make this one the other hand the fact that it's in there