folks had a policy that i am coverage for three vehicles earlier in the first argument i heard justice duncan say let's take a step back and look at the big picture here and that's what i would like to do first if i'm if i'm allowed the insured paid a premium on three separate vehicles for property damage and what are called split limits one hundred thousand person or three hundred per paroxetine they were charged a premium that paid a lump sum premium and now the insurer interprets its policy to completely eliminate any obligation to make to you i am payments i do not know how they got there mr casey might be able to explain where this all set takes place but they are using an offset to complete flake deprive this family of any you i am payments because the one hundred thousand cells and report these are one hundred thousand that result is void against virginia public policy there is a case it's if you look at the liability provision it says our maximum liabilities a hundred thousand events section b goes but we get credit for anything you get from the port fees so in other words in this case zero by offsetting that amounts are people have paid for something that they will never get it's a looser ring and although it's lost in the legal argument if you look at the insurers initial denial ladder which is a one thirty six they said you don't get paid because of the one offsetting limits of the words they use if you look at the state farm versus still face the virginia supreme court decision that stated and these are quotes allowing a limitation on liability allowing a limitation of the amount paid presumes that some amount will be paid nationwide human indorsement set off requirement entirely eliminates payment under the u n portion of the  supreme court when nationwide tried it in one thousand nine hundred four so you can't eliminate your liability by having a maximum and then having an offset they're entitled to something because they've paid for it and otherwise it would illusory now it's important because in the in that case of just cited there was a discussion about the good bill case i know the courts familiar with a good bill pace that's a case where the  clients insurance policy to get over if if if let's say that let's say the at fault vehicle has a statutory minimum of twenty five thousand that and we would get presumably seventy five thousand of those on the last contact welcome back to that these in type stacking provisions or permissible so long as they're clear but in the case in which the virginia supreme court said you can't you limit your liability the court stated nor does the rationale allowing policy all payment under the un coverage as a nationwide set off provisions do here in your response to change tracks lose question is hypothetical would the seventy five thousand dollars you feel the pain that you are saying would be entitled to that cover would that come from the u i your provision yet in your view in our view i think the way the you i am with you i am provision where and i'll address that point now i think for you i am provision is deceptive and misleading because of certain scenarios that can arise based on the amount of coverage that the outfall vehicle has as you know the u i the limitation of liability says the maximum we will  pay or the most we will pay is a single per person limit in this case a hundred under no scenario would that be the maximum paid for the most because if the person has a statutory minimum the most would paid seventy five so that means there is an offset for what you're recognizing that there is an offset against what cost a pace i read with a policy  say in practice the policy says specifically that any amounts recovered from the at all vehicle will be reduced against what it is so be offset using your lies so under which that was my understanding as well and the reason i ask is that there were points in your brief it would in which at which i was not clear there were points at which i thought you were arguing that you were still permitted to recover one hundred thousand dollars from garrison which is precisely why that offset is the legal and void against public policy under the case that i cited hale versus nationwide versus hell they specifically you're beyond of that you're not and they get zero which they're getting under this circumstance they would have got one hundred thousand from all state whether they paid for you i am covered or not but they paid a premium for something they can never get under this policy and that's why you get cases like  owing zero i don't i'm sorry i'm not clear on your argument are you saying that the offset function is void is against public policy in tandem limiting the amount to a specific number and then offsetting that just because of fortuity of this accident that number happened to be the two two thousand and four code section which says you are allowed to move you through limit your liability it does not say you're allowed to eliminate your liability the way they have this policy set up they first limit their liability to a specific number and then offset it in those circumstances where people have the same amount so you're in actual violation of thirty eight point two two two four which will control over any insurance policy but people should receive at a minimum one hundred thousand dollars because that's the maximum limit of liability the insurer said it would pass and in this in that case one hundred thousand right so you would get one hundred dollars yeah but that doesn't say that the provision is the only place in the entire policy for the distinctions not made between us or you i am coverage it just says under a different policy provision and basically a women ate the protection the code had allowed to give them one hundred thousand dollars limit that's their limit that's the most they would have to pay against a images if the policy were where they have said this is duplicitous because it could never be they could never be one hundred because if at the if they have the minimum amount twenty five thousand but most will be paid to seventy five that's the most you'll be paid so when the provision says the most you will be paid and the maximum we will pay is one hundred thousand and three about that is false in every you i am contacts we cited the mid century decision for that proposition and there's there's class action in chicago now where people are saying these policies it's a loose recovered we're paying for something we can't get in this case are people of paid years and years of premiums for you i am coverage and they're not getting a time u i m amount if their damages exceed the hundred thousand which for purposes of this argument where were were saying it does then they are coming up short virginia is one of those states that says it's narrow interpretation sixty six the case for white versus nationwide was the first case in the country to hold that so in this case you are depriving them of you i am coverage by policy provisions that are void as against public policy sixty five and this hill versus mention like they specifically looked a good bill so stacking language actually allowed to have an anti stacking prevails but you cannot you limon eight all your liability if you want to questions about that but it in this case the policy itself is set up such that it is void against public policy in this context and you'll never know at that bill said they could do then they probably would have passed muster but here they went beyond that they tried to say we're going to limit our liability and they were taken off setting credit so we owe you nothing and the virginia supreme court clearly has said no you've got to pay something they have paid for that coverage they're entitled to set something for you to limit it you can limit it you cannot eliminate and here the stacking language the free three hundred get at least three hundred thousand so that should be the amount if the if the limitation liability stricken as it should be is void against public policy we should get three hundred thousand dollars in you i am coverage the good morning thank you in this case less fear seeks to stack the uninsured motorist coverage of her policy with garrison to increase the amount of uninsured motorist coverage above the one hundred thousand dollars for each person the accident limit tone in the declarations this she cannot do because the plain language of the policy permit prohibits it that language in the policy is language that is that has been approved by the supreme court of virginia and other federal and state courts applying virginia law to prohibit stacking in this context in fact no court has perhaps permitted stacking of uninsured motorist coverage on a policy like garrison policy you have a case where they allowed stacking vision like here and also  position that we take in this case we're not arguing there's some offset or we're arguing that that the vehicle the vehicle driven by heather anderson that was insured by allstate is not an under insured motor vehicle as defined by the policy and therefore because it is not an under insured motor vehicle as defined by the policy the under insured motorist coverage is not implicate it's as simple as that and and that is that is shown and i'll person in order to determine the amount of under an uninsured motorist coverage that is available under the policy a joint appendix thirty two the policy states the limit of liability and says that the limit of bodily injury liability shown in the declarations for each person for uninsured motorist coverage is the maximum limit so that directs the reader to the declaration look at the declarations and wishes page fifteen of the joint appendix and by looking at the declarations it's clear that the limits of liability shown in the declarations for bodily injury for uninsured motorist coverage for each person is one hundred thousand dollars so then the question becomes once you determine that that's the amount of those provisions that it's one hundred thousand dollars the question is is the heather marie anderson vehicle an uninsured motor vehicle well you look then to the definition in the policy of what an uninsured motor vehicle is and clearly it's not an uninsured motor vehicle because it's insured by allstate with liability coverage limits of one hundred thousand dollars so in the definition in the policy the moorhead the ray anderson vehicle is not an uninsured motor vehicle so the next question is is the and under insured motor vehicle in order to determine whether it's an under insured motor vehicle again look to the definition of an under insured motor vehicle in the policy and in the policy the definition of an under insured motor vehicle requires one to determine the amount of liability insurance coverage that is available for payment of the claim of the claimant that's one hundred thousand dollars that allstate has and has offered to pay in this case and compare that to the sum of the limits of uninsured motorist coverage under the garrison policy or any other policy so when you look to some of the limits of uninsured motorist coverage and of the garrison house hearing other policy what is the answer to that question it's one hundred thousand dollars because i've just done the analysis that shows that that is one hundred thousand dollars so the the definition of uninsured under insured motors vehicle under joint appendix page thirty one says is the amount of liability coverage that's available for payment less than the amount of under of uninsured motorist coverage the district court did not say what you i am and if you read through the district courts of pain it's clear that the district court didn't distinguish between you i am and you and i didn't decide what those acronyms met if you read the opinion of the district court it appears that the district court used the terms were used to didn't use the term us at all so it appears that he used the term you i am without defining it to be uninsured motorist coverage you know now i mean you i am as you i am well you i am is either unshared motors coverage policy it was not always clear to me whether we were talking about in trump policy stacking or interpreted by steven stack and what the and what the plant is attempting to do here is inter policy is in within the same policy in trying to offer up the plaintiff is attempting to do interrupt the stacking here because there is no other policy had there been another of the in which the plane of was insured for under insured or under insured motors coverage then those those coverages those uninsured motors coverages could be stacked under the provisions of this policy to then compare that amount to the amount of liability coverage that's available for payment or the claim of the insured against the at fault vehicle so for example of if this was fair had a policy of another vehicle a separate policy that provided one hundred thousand dollars and you'd add that one hundred thousand dollars to this one hundred thousand dollars and have two hundred thousand dollars in insured motorists coverage of because of that says compare the amount of liability coverage available for a burberry meant with the some of the limits of liability clickable to the insured for uninsured motorist coverage under this policy or any other policy so then you have two hundred thousand dollars in uninsured motors which to then compared to the one hundred thousand in that case of the vehicle would be under insured and it would be under insured in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars in that situation but we don't have that here the by going through the policy definitions and analysis we know that the amount of uninsured motorist coverage is one hundred thousand dollars that's not less than the amount of liability coverage and therefore the vehicle is neither uninsured nor under insured under the definitions of them under the policy there is not a single court that i'm aware of that has adopted the plaintiff's argument in this case and in fact we cited by i believe better all court cases from district courts in virginia that have considered the same policy and ruled the same way the judge do margit we have cited within those cases and tens of state court cases that have been cited there's a site there are citations of at least fifteen virginia circuit court cases that have held the same way and can considering similar policies or identical policies that's backing in truck policy stacking approved this this language or language very similar to this in the good bill case and so to say that it is void is against public policy when it's supreme court of virginia has specifically approved similar language and it's been no that's not correct ok tell me how and under insurance coverage you pay out on in the example i just gave you where there is where there are more than one policies i'm talking about the one p know i'm not going to want to have another on your policy this contract right there in order to determine whether a vehicle is under insured you don't just consider the one policy you consider other policies that may provide but but under this policy which is the only policy that would be paying that you would be the garrison would be paying one hundred thousand dollars in under insured coverage in a situation where there were multiple policies that were stacked and and vehicle then was under insured in an amount that would lead to garrison paying one hundred thousand dollars so garrison could pay one hundred thousand dollars in under insurance coverage under this policy if the vehicle was under insured to the extent that that  that amount was less required by garson to pay but if you exclude as you said in your premise to your question interposed the stacking from that consideration then i think you're right it would not be able to pay out one hundred thousand dollars  that well the definition of under insured motor vehicle says that it says that that in you compare the amount of liability coverage it's available for payment with the sum of the limits of liability of political for the insured for uninsured motorist coverage under this policy or any other policy so by you by looking at that definition and applying that you can determine whether or not he would have one hundred thousand dollars and under him could have one hundred priority of policies listed on how that works you have a first i think that's  so it's really as simple as the analysis of of the policy language that i went through earlier and the language of the policy provides the intent to provide one hundred thousand dollars in uninsured under insured motor's coverage and that's and that's what we have in this in this policy and the the anti stacking language although it's not called anti stacking in the policy but that's the way the courts of referred to it it's just called limits of liability in the policy that language has been upheld to limit or prevent the in trouble see stacking that the plaintiff in this case is asking this court to permit that where the courts have permitted it the only case which has permitted it is a case that's clearly distinguishable that's the farm bureau versus williams case and in that case it was permitted because that anti stacking language directed the reader to the declarations page for the determination of what was the each person limit of uninsured motorist coverage but there were multiple limits so the reader did not know where to what the limit was by going to the declaration page and the regime supreme an ambiguity and obviously it did where it pointed the reader to different numbers different figures in order to determine the limits supreme court resolve that ambiguity by allowing the stacking the point of does not argue in this case agree with you the district court allowed five hundred thousand dollars was a declaratory judgment was never appealed we i figured coming to this court that was my starting point the way they are using the way they are using the under brief that you have the some of the limits of liability that is stacking language it is hallmarks stacking language some beams to aggregate limits is plural and so therefore what he's got to do is he's got to reach to a limitation of liability section to bootstrap in over the hundred thousand to use it as an offset under the anatomy or structural policy you don't do that you look first at the definitions you qualify as an underachiever motorist vehicle here you do stack you get three hundred cars or three vehicles the sum of the limits of liability three hundred is more than one hundred and you get to the insuring agreement it surely agreement promises to pay in accordance with a virginia statute which in the statute says we pay in the amount it's under insured in this case three hundred thousand then you get to the limitation of liability you don't take that limitation of liability and pull back into the definitions to make it an offset credit now when you talk about good will good deals distinguishable because it said the total limit of liability is twenty five thousand here they said the most we will pay and the maximum liability those are significant differences because they all are giving an upper song courts that have reviewed that language most we will pay in maximum liability say that is two plus two plus a test because it is impossible the only way you would pay one hundred thousand is if it was you ama coverage meaning there was cases in my brief where they say that is duplicitous and misleading to consumers you're saying on your deck sheet you get one hundred three hundred for you i am and you'll never get that if we're allowed to take this the doctrine you i am circumstance you aware of a case which allows this offset of course not there is a for genius supreme court case that i have cited to forty seven v a seventy eight page eighty five it says we know about good fell we know the anti stacking provision in good bill allows it to limit its liability to prevent stacking in this case the three vehicles but you do not get a complete offset nationwide if the exact same argument in that case in  it got us onto a slippery slope because we were including the peroxide into the her damage because of that claim of omission in the language you know pigs get fat hogs get slaughtered and so for purposes of this argument under his analysis of your sharing agreement says we'll pay you a specific saw because that statute is a mathematical calculation between a supreme court decision say it's a mathematical calculation it would be the equivalent of saying i will pay you one thousand and s a but i'll pay you one hundred in section b there's a conflict there and that's what we've got here this policy is flawed and they just try to stay closer to a good bill and allow themselves to have a limit on liability as opposed to any lumination a liability they might have had a stronger argument they would collect in premiums all over the state and god knows all over the country were payments they'll never have to make and there are cases around the country clas