his untimely but let me let me start with the question which party is intitled to recover the amount of the policy mr dobbins signed is that his is your insurance policy to the bank of union as collateral to secure a loan from the bank notifying the insurer of the assignment affected the validity of the sun and it did not what that what that paperwork provision said was you need a sinus policy we ensure are bound by an assignment does not go to the liturgy of the assignment it goes to whether the insurer is bound by an assignment it protects the insurer in the event it doesn't receive notification of an assignment it pays someone else  court and asked the court to resolve who isn't able to return to recover the proceeds it took steps to make sure that this wouldn't happen that it wouldn't need to invoke this provision and thus the paperwork vision of policy just has no bearing on since it doesn't affect the validity of the assignment and courts including this court have drawn a distinction between policy language that conditions the validity of an assignment or beneficiary change on insurer acceptance or sent a notification court said that the policy quote was not acquire usas consent insurers consent to make an assignment rather it only requires consent of the senate to be effective against it and many other courts of recognize this distinction and have understood that this type of language just doesn't bear on whether an assignment is valid and by the same token because this provision is there to protect the insurer no one other than the insurer has standing to invoke and that's what  judge that's what i believe that al qaeda was distinguishable because the state in charge of state was named as the beneficiary but that that actually does not distinguish that case that in this case it brings that case closer to this case and the reason was there was no doubt of sending the policy so for several reasons the lewis case is not controlling here the closest case in oklahoma is the outlier case on that case in many respects is extremely close to this case because there was an the beneficiary rather than assigning and yet the court said this is sure enough occasion provision simply doesn't matter does not control occasion provision were waived but that's not the case as we've been discussing the assignment was valid when it was executed it needed no further acts and needed no acceptance recognition waiver by the insurer to be effective and th under the class case the collateral signy takes a vested interest in an insurance policy upon an assignment and if if there was a vested interest in any one it was the bank of unions to do his interest yes yes i guess he has succeeded nobody disputes you know his age was what was right you know say you know done by the you know the the agent or whatever it was time to pay in other words from his side your other didn't bring in action it didn't do anything to secret a change in policy until twenty sixteen seventeen years later the oklahoma statue who had limitations for a contract reformation action or indeed any other any kind of contract actions five years merely deals with the effect of an in contestability clause and we're not arguing an scope of an untestable because at all and that's fine we don't we're not disputing that but the only effect of that statute is the take this is the take this out of the take the sort of request out of into us to go to clause it is not in any way  so that's why we believe as a tightness matter the insurer is not entitled to change the not the policy as far as the merits of the request hordes looking at this type of issue have distinguish had had the power to and did send medical examiner to to ascertain with isn't whether this insured is in good health if you didn't catch that that's your problem so they're like here it was the insurers errors it was the insurance commission that policy for misstatement of age and thus to snatch her language from oklahoma that seems to be saying that it is discovered at the time of death that the insurance company can and can adjust at that time lives and that's sufficient the opportunity to adjust and once when you can apply a statute of limitation on top of what seemed to be an open ended right on the part of the insurance co and will have to deal with it your time right the reason we think this is the right way to read the statute represent eleanor cattle l l c which is the successor by merger to dobbins enterprises and thomas we've been the beneficiary on this policy since october of two thousand and one the life insurance policy was issued to enterprises now in our after i think it's notable that after larry dobbins fell into financial difficulty land stop ins the owner of the pole seen the principle of ale in our ask jackson national to confirm the details of the policy and by letter in november twenty fifth jackson national submitted them a memorandum of insurance that's in their record at three eighty nine that confirmed larry dobbins was insured lance dobbins was the owner dolphins inner prizes was the beneficiary notably jackson national did not acknowledge mention or reference an assignment to bank of union so let's look at it another way what legal ways purely a question of law minimally what would mr don binns have had to do to assign the policy to the bank of union well he was standing any provisions of the policy the paperwork that needs to be filed with the insurer what would constitute an assignment under oklahoma right and i think that the oklahoma cases that are cited show that it's very easy to to tender an assignment in fact one of the main cases dealt with an oral assignment so i think minimally need to be an assignment in writing but the key in this case and the key that f d i c ignores is that while they rely on the al ca then nor that lewis is also good law and he remains good law and they're different and your orders in so we deal with two different scenarios the al car case specifically was limited to where the the policy where the dispute was between an insurer who left it to his estate and if you look at every case that cites to al they reference that limitation in our car now that's very different than in loops in the best way to find in distinguish between lewis and alcohol or is what is the substance of the  same scenarios on page two ninety six of the church or indecision it talks about the form of assignment has been held to be sufficient to constitute a change of beneficiary when such beneficiary was a third person unless contrary to express terms of the policy so that's the lewis case in the do a couple sins later it says the case it bought more which is charge trained presents a different situation from that disclosed in either of those decisions no third party had an interest in the policy it was payable to the state or the insured a living person has no heirs this state of the testator's as beneficiary of the pole see in the vision of his death had not come into existence that's al car and so it goes on it it references basically the loose scenario again and says if any third person is a name beneficiary that enter disappear and unless the beneficiary is change in accordance with the policy so so there's these two different scenarios under oklahoma law and i think the key here it really comes down and judge fis water did a great job of of analyzing and probably pulling some things that we didn't realize at the time of that briefing but you have lewis which is good law you have out car which is good law plus you have the on as look in the last night subject to its terms relating to a sudden ability basically a life insurance policy maybe a son and so the key holding in injustice water picked up on this and i think he's one hundred percent right under the current status of oklahoma law is that the lewis case held that where a life insurance policy contains a perv vision setting forth the method and manner and steps necessary to be taken to change the beneficiary insurance company was still holding on to the money or their risk of giving the money to the wrong person or whatever so in the mean which seemed cases it says there but in that case know that requirement well i think you have to look tide that really the three cases it's lois it's out car it's charge trade and then you tie in the statute the specific oklahoma statute that doesn't apply in any of these other out of state cases that says that subject to the terms relating to assign ability then a life insurance policy may be assigned so in oklahoma and  judge fists were picked up on that statute i believe in it but it certainly links though i'm sorry actually did judge g s t in this unreported case that they cited picked up on that and linked that that statute to the ability to assign i really think that's that the issue your honor there's no there's no other case that that is right on point they say they argue outtara is the most relevant case i would say if you look at chartres and you can tell elph car really is not applicable to our case the other day and setting for some you know basic that the shark train case actually distinguished between these two exact scenarios absolutely ask you another question a pure question you know oklahoma law windows and asinine ass signy become vested to use the term vested in so far as your client is concerned just put aside insurance policy or property in general if there is an assignment made when does the ass sign he become vested with regard to this law a life insurance policy if the terms require it to be to be accepted or to be the terms of the policy require a method for it to be they don't become vested until it's accepted by the life insurance policy and that's what that's what limits is it says a valid assignment policy cannot be made except as provided in the polls itself so i think generally if you don't you know if you just deal with contract rights it's of media upon assignment if you're dealing with a life insurance policy where you have the insurance place under louis under that particular language it doesn't become valid so they were vested they've never been vested in that's why judge fitzwater  court good morning i'm here for apple rejects a national life insurance company at issue here is an ageless statement provision and it's required by oklahoma legislature section four thousand six to be put in every single life insurance policy and it allows the partings to adjust the policy benefits to reflect what the premiums paid would have purchased based on the correct age late to figure out that you made a mistake therefore that's right and we do not dispute that it was our mistake but i will tell you your honor why that is not important to this case and number one is the policy language itself it is fault neutral it applies to any mistake a misstatement up or down and that means that if the beneficiary had been a year younger then we would have to adjust the policy proceeds up the statute and the policy language are aimed to protect both the insurance company and the insurer was it the insurance company though in possession of a correction but that wasn't made clear that that date was in error way back at the time the policy was was placed yes that is correct your honor it was that mr dobbins who made the point of saying oh by the way that's not my real birthday this is the actual date i'm not sure that mr dobbins said that but i do admit that the insurance company was aware of the missta however there is no such there is no qualification in the policy language it does allow an age of adjustment any time as does the statute that you pointed out judge southwick there are section forty fifteen says and in however even if the statute of limitations applies assume that the five year statue imitations does apply there was no right or justiciable issue that jackson national head until the f to until the f d i c decided that it was not going to allow us to adjust the policy proceeds that's what we had an issue when the if the i c contested the contract language and that at that point jackson  they rely on cases all of them that they've cited are in applicable for two reasons number one they are all involved in sure the insurance company tried to completely void a policy and only return the premiums paid based on an age misstatement and that's not what jessica shina do here jackson is simply trying to enforce the contract provision as written that oklahoma law requires that a put in the policy and the second reason the cases are on an inapplicable is because they all date predate section forty fifteen where the oklahoma legislature reconciled the dispute and the conflict between an  contestability clause which does not allow for insurance company to change the contract after two years and an age misstatement clause which allows the insurance company to adjust the policy proceeds the oklahoma legislature clearly emitted that there are no cases in the context of age adjustment in oklahoma and the reason for that is because this is a no fault provision and that has already been decided in section forty fifteen issue is no longer going to come up with just the insurance company have to do to make the adjustment once they're put on notice that a date is in error what is it that they have to not get into this calculation or should say recalculate understand so so the data is eroni asli written down all right by one year it's off and then the insurance company soon thereafter by whomever is put on notice that that's not the actual birth date what is it that the insurance company has to do in reaction to that in order to make the correction that apparently wasn't done in this case well at the time that the policy proceeds become payable because the contract language says we will adjust the policy proceeds jim i understand i part what i'm saying is what would what is the insurance companies put on notice do they need to take some action to make a correction or can they just say oh no no thanks for the missed age adjustment must be made and i would say that the insurance company is not obligated to do anything prior to going become thing and the insurance company you mentioned earlier i think one of the arguments in your briefing here today was that well if it operated to the benefit of the insured and we would have to pay more if there was an error made then so be it can the insurance company make a correction if the the insured puts down the wrong age inadvertently not fraudulent inadvertently the it wrong age is written down in the insurance company at some point during the pendency of the life of the insurer go in and say well wait a minute let's get this straight we're queer correcting the birth date because we don't want to the end of the day when the person is deceased we don't want to have to pay more than what we're we were on the hook for it said whatever amount policy we're not paying more than it so we're going to make a correction now can the insurance company do that or  precluded from doing that now i believe the insurance company can make that adjustment at that time based on a lot language that it can be done at any time well ok well that it's my question then the insurance company could have when put on notice way back when that mr dobbins birthday was wrong they could have made a correction then so as to not deduct upon his death yes your honor they could have but that's their in their contract language and their right any time and i leave it there it's their right to do it any time argument in order to have latches under oklahoma law there has been there has to have been an unreasonable delay in the commencement of proceedings to enforce the claim and here jackson national had no cla was a situation where the beneficiary had priority over the assignment and ordinarily if there was a third party beneficiary there could be a new assignment without the beneficiaries consent in that scenario because the state was  there didn't have to be a consensus that was the distinction that the church record was the strong it was not speaking to ensure notification issues at any time it was not additional church second let me here's the policy every change of beneficiary must be made by written notice of the company for endorsement of the change they're on by the company and unless so indorsed the change shall not take effect no change of beneficent shall take effect on us indoors then this  all of that language is very very different it couldn't hardly be more different from the insurer protection the we are not down body language that we have here we had in the bank bank a popular case in that in the bankers health care case there is a clear distinction the law many courts recognize this distinction and this course addition in the bank about lawyers a very good explanation that it's non binding is that decision but it is the way i think a very persuasive account of this is very distinction about a subject term drilling decidability any life insurance policy can be assigned if trying to that was a reaction to the initial case law and oklahoma and is trying to make sure that the terms of insurance policies for assignments are followed in all cases that seems like a pretty heavy weight put on that language you have any particular interpretation of of this statute that you can give us as to what it is doing now it relates to our forever insurance or to assign an insurance policy so i think this statute is underscoring that there can be an assignment and that the policy can set the terms of a son ability but it certainly does not speak to  does it doesn't speak to what terms make it to make a policy assignable under what circumstances it simply establishes the background fact that insurance policies can be assigned so we don't we don't think it answers any question that's before this court because there's no dispute if the insurer misrepresented in the insured misrepresented his health if the what the insurer knew about it that was read into this policy and open records of consistently done that they've consistently read fought neutral clauses that policy