the cancellation of the trucker's certificate of insurance which is the financial responsibility requirement or does it govern the certificate and the actual insurance contract if it's don't have a lot to go on it certainly seems like it's a very the argument serves a lot better for a policy days then i i would think the california supreme court would want to weigh in on are you worried you're going to lose the california supreme court you'd rather take your chances with the th circuit not your home but i think the statute especially under the statutory interpretation rules the insurance throughout the motor carrier of property permit act and then in the specific statute that we're discussing the cancellation provisions refer only to the certificate of insurance those are basic certificate of insurance shall not be cancelable on less than thirty days written notice from the insurer to the d m v and if you read that in connection with a prior subdivision subdivision a that talks about the purpose of the certificate of in the st place you come away with two purposes of the statute the st is why is the certificate required subdivision a tells us it shall provide coverage with respect to the operation or use of any vehicle for which a permit is required all though the vehicle may not be specifically described in the policy so you can have situations where the where the insurance policies in force the trucker for whatever reason maybe they are o somebody else's vehicle maybe they're operating their own vehicle but they don't tell their insurance company because they don't want to pay premiums on that truck if they use that if the trucker is using commercial vehicle in his or her business that is not covered by the insurance policy the legislature has determined that they want to have a certificate of insurance tha and i think that we should do nothing with that and that is because when the motor carrier of property permit act was enacted in nineteen thousand and sixty one of the things that was done was t statute was repealed and then the language we're talking about here whether the thirty day period of cancellation applies to the insurance policy or only to the certificate of insurance to have the cancellation provisions apply only to the policy as it was in the predecessor statute but then ten months later in the june version of the legislation they removed that entirely and inserted the current cancellation provision that applies only to the certificate of insurance so that tells us without a doubt that the legislature decided to change course and apply the cancellation provisions only to the certificate of insurance and then the question may be will what what governs the policy that's what insurance code section six hundred and seventy seven two does as we've pointed out in our brief that's an entirely different statute it governs what steps need to be taken for cancellation of the actual insurance contract and none of those steps require notice to the department of motor vehicles you know so i have one further question this all has to do with the november five two thousand and thirteen notice of cancellation that your company sends but i gather the d m v felt it was never filed properly is it do i have that understanding i think so you're not sure about the date but you have essentially timeline mr choruses policy with my  understand it unless i'm misreading the record allied relies on the fact that that notice of cancellation was never effective and therefore your company is what they're there there were various notices of cancellation sent to the d m v depending on whether mr horace changed his policy limits but i can tell you that the notice of cancellation that went out by my client after the lapse of the policy was not accepted by the d m v because of a clerical error and then the accident happened three or four months later are five months later and at that time the allied policy was in force and my client policy was not that it's or to pick it was still on file with the d m v i want to ask you i have whatever the family of the victim or whoever got the money settle bed that ally just paid out the policy limits if this if your interpretation is wrong and we say that that put you on the line with the victim going to have two million available no because they already signed a release and settled the case it's done well no but let's just say all right but let's see if the law if we say the law is there the early california supreme court says wh you got that certificate on file regardless of what happened in the policy you have to pay the policy limits if that were that if that were the law then it would seem to me at the time that the victim would have sued you but be on the line for a one million bucks right well if the insurance policy my client's insurance policy is still in force and allies policy is also enforced i'm know if what the policy is if you have been counseled certificate of insurance properly with him you're on you know the policy is still considered in effect that there would have been two million bucks on the line in my understanding that wrong well i i would imagine if the if again we're saying the policy wasn't in force but if it wasn't i don't know but if i want it's a lot that is if if the county there hasn't been a california case yet as addressed that issue so i mean i guess what i guess what i'm trying to say is if you lose here or if you lose but the california supreme court if you lose and you have to pay five hundred thousand dollars to united  that and under the theory of the case as a target here would that mean that one victim's would be able to make the same claim they would have access to policies in that situation i need to understand that yes i think it would give her eyes to an confusion and so to start fresh good afternoon memphis support my name is hilary arrogances and i represent allied near insurance in this matter as i believe you can see from the braves and the world argument presented here today by appellant what appellant is really asking you to do is to twist the meaning of a certificate of insurance twist the relevant statutes and all of the applied couple precedents which granted is not very much beyond recognition and the whole point of this is to save the appellant from its own sta s counsel may i ask which notice of cancellation are you relying upon the words in the united notice for your position well your hon for our position we are relying on the fact that no proper notice of cancellation was timely received by the d m v we understand that and is that the import for this case is not necessarily what the specific defect was beat him for is that the d m v rejected the notice of cancellation and sent it back though before the accident happened the rejection your honor i don't believe that is in the record however we would submit that it is irrelevant because of the way the code sections are written the d m v must actually receive it and that is defined as receiving a proper notice i know the statute sound like they're harsh but they are  time the underlying case was settled of the existence of the appellant's policy and the continued fact of pnas of appellants policy during the underlying case and i believe it's in the record i don't have the cite for you right now but it is in our brief with this tight ally had tendered to united financial and had requested in fact demanded that they participate in the underlying case and provide a defense as the policy is a primary policy so you have a situation where you have two primary policies and allied demanded the participation of appellant appellant refused and after allied settled the underlying base for its policy limits began pursuing appellant in this action well and then if you were aware of that at that time you were obviously aware of the terms of the policy that united had were you not i cannot say for sure whether we have the actual policy what we have this point is is that you you would have known that that policy lapsed in twenty on the d m v website that is available to the public for search if showed at the time of the accident that the appellant policy was still were listed on the d m v site there is no policy that can review and the information is simply from the d m v stating to the public that this policy is in existence and remains in full force and effect because it has not been cancelled so do something like i've done to dish and now thank you very much some people have more than two certificates i have in turn left the order they only put one what's the your honor i obviously can't speak for everybody my understanding is that most motor carriers have one of the time they may have excess coverage but it's generally only the primary coverage that's listed in my experience in representing trucking companies this situation that united supreme court were decide consistent with what the district court sad what the victim's family or whoever a fatal had to do you paid the policy limits that you have would they have had would if the law were to be what the district court said where the victim have had access to two million dollars i believe that both policies would have been considered primary policies and some my understanding is that that could have been available i don't know all of the defenses that appellant may have had in that situation but i do know that the law considers them both i and so i know that there's always some delay on certification honestly i'm not quite as concerned on a certification where people are investing us it's not that five hundred thousand dollars there's a small amount of money certainly is not but i'm assuming that the delay if we wanted to make sure that we rather than channel what california would be we decided we want to hear what they would do person you want everyone wants to win right now and so does mr howe and so everyone would like to he would like to rehearse you'd like us to affirm that in terms of you said this does  isn't as unusual as it's not a one off and well you're on there i mean i can tell you from my personal experience and practicing law i've seen two or three in the past ten years not a lot we have had occasion to search d m v records and every yeah it's it i don't know how to characterize it i wouldn't say where i wouldn't say common but we these situations but i think this certification we raised in our brief because we did feel that that there is a lack of you know president in the case law but i would like to point out a couple of things with respect to a felon's argument that i think are important that undermine their entire position on number one is how these documents are being what we have three documents we have a certificate of insurance we have an endorsement and we have a policy plaintiff is asking you to see these documents as three completely separate standalone documents as we discuss in our brief you can't separate them you simply cannot kill the policy  claim that the certificate of insurance is still alive and one of the main reasons for that is if you look at the certificate of insurance itself which is in the record of page ninety one  s one of the lines here and this is under oath statement by appellant says the motor carrier of property insured identified here and is covered by an insurance policy is covered by an insurance policy the only purpose of the certificate of insurance is to evidence that there is in fact a policy in place a certificate of insurance can't live by itself it is it's just informing the d m v that a policy exists that's the record of the policy and if we look your honor at the indors and the indorsement is what in large is coverage under the policy but is again by its express terms in the endorsements at ninety dollars in the record it says that the endorsement quote shall be attached to and made a whore of all policy ensuring motor carriers are property you cannot separate this endorsement from the policy the same can not indorse you cannot separate any endorsement from any insurance policy indorsements don't stand alone they are not complete documents so the endorsement on the policy are one in the same the certificate evidences the existence of the policy what appellant was arguing here was the purpose of the certificate is to expand coverage to cover unscheduled vehicle that is not the purpose of the certificate of insurance in fact that is precisely the purpose of the door smith which is part of the policy and i see my time is tight i just want to skip roll quick to the primary vehicle code section that appellant is relying on which is vehicle code section thirty four  solely on section b which does say the words the certificate of insurance shall not be cancelable ok it does say a certificate of insurance but if you look at section a which obviously comes before b in section a of the stats you the language as a motor carrier her permit shall not be granted to any motor carrier or property until there is filed with the department proof of financial responsibility in the form of a currently effective certificate of insurance and you skip down a little bit in the same section a and it says if the policy represented by the certificate meets the minimum insurance requirement the statutory language in the section before section b is already recognizing that all a certificate does is represent an insurance policy in in this this scheme of regulations and stand up to the certificate of insurance is filed with the d m v the policy is not but the certificate represents the policy so when you get to section b which she says the certificate cannot be cancelled at all except on you know thirty days notice the certificate is the only thing the d but if the certificate is not cancel the policy must still be a lie because the certificate can't be alive without the policy also being alive and the certificate states under penalty of perjury that the policy exists you can't separate the i think we understand your argument let me ask my colleagues since it's your mentor never let me ask them that they have you know i wish the d m v forms that the executive branch used some better giraffe in quality because there are certainly at certain points at odds with the enabling statute which controls but i think the court inter party in them needs to find a way to make them consistent with the enabling statute so for example when an insurance company files a certificate of insurance that says there a policy in force it has to be recognized that that certificate is filed when the policy is in force but at a subsequent v the policy may lapse because the policy holder decides not to keep it in force and so at that point the policy is not in force even though the prior certificate says it is so i think those are just drafting errors or things that can be construed to be i don't know what the allied told the claimant about available insurance so i'm not sure what took place there but what i can tell you is if i could just get a couple seconds to wrap it up right now if a cliff if the judgment is a firm you basically have a holding that this statute applies to the cancellation of the insurance policy so let's assume my client did the right thing the policy lapses we send out a certificate  of cancellation to the d m v it's accepted there's thirty days of what called free coverage or of the claimant in the event the motor carrier doesn't go get new insurance coverage if the judgments  firmed than it's whole he's not only going to apply to our situation it will apply even if my client did the right thing because our lives policy goes into effect day one and if a loss happens during those st thirty days now al i can pay the claim and then come back to my client for half and that's not what the statute was intended to be and otherwise your honor if you unless you get less the i mean i find out of my colleagues judges helpful and this matter will stand submitted thank you thank you ari i believe the that i called the last case already so i think they finished going through the calendar so this court will be in recess till tomorrow at one o'clock and the judges will be moved to the