made please the court i would submit that the threshold question in this case is does this motor vehicle liability policy apply to the use of europe temple everybody conceded that the policy language itself was not his problem is the act of a wrong well the parade vehicle endorsement ok this policy is like many automobile primary automobile an insurance policy that you see in the ga but in this case there is a very unique endorsement so you tell me the policy covers it we don't have to look at that act you have to look at the act and the policy strategically reason not to concede it since the act is broader than the policy right that the policy doesn't cover it but the act was i thought that was the position at and that it and that is true to this extent your honor the reason the policy has got to cover parade vehicles own by members of europe is because of the parade vehicle endorsement it provides liability coverage and so therefore because provides liability coverage it applies and therefore for any policy that applies to these parade vehicles that covers that is issued for these then you've got to have the says it applies one member own freight vehicles are used by members going to and from europe temple parades and consequently as you point out because the policy applies to these parade vehicles owned by these members in general under the liability coverage there's got to be corresponding u n coverage unless it has been rejected in writing by thirty three thousand seven hundred and eleven and there is no question in this case that there is no written rejection of the un coverage as to the use of these member on vehicles consequently the un coverage for this for these parade vehicles owned by members has to be the one one million dollars and un coverage because those vehicles have one billion dollars in coverage under the liability part the trial court we believe got it wrong because it looked only at these parade vehicles owned by members because the the policy only provides uninsured motors coverage to occupants of scheduled vehicles and we would we would all concede that this was not a scheduled vehicle a gr agree ok ok but rather and we concede that and this is not a contract interpretation case we're not saying this was vague and ambiguous rather we're saying that this policy when issued didn't comply with the u n law as to projecting u n coverage for the parade vehicles owned by members that are otherwise covered by the liability coverage now if their member own parade vehicle endorsement did not exist and because that parade vehicle indorsement exist they must also be a un rejection as to those vehicles as to the use of those vehicles and it must be in writing but wouldn't the other side say that the parade exception gives liability coverage to the insured but not to the converted vehicle because it's not a vehicle on which the policy applies the the parade vehicle endorsement says liability cover applies only while the parade vehicle is used in parades is talking about the use of the vehicle now it is true they're not going to pay for any loss of the of the they don't have an inch or about interest in the property but it's the use of the vehicle that the liability attached and if the use of the vehicle as used by your members that's the very same core of that parade vehicle indorsement and again because that endorsement is there to its members while using those member own vehicles and again they did there is that there is a significant practical issue from what you're talking about to when when when an insurance company is issuing a policy and it's going to have the they're offering on a vehicle they have to offer the uninsured motorist and they say unless you in writing disavow it how in the world do you come to every single member who's using a vehicle in a parade and say oh by the way how do you do you want to do or not i mean there is a practical impossibility to that i don't know the impossible and i would cite to you the jones versus federated insurance case that we cited in our br in that case the it was a commercial policy the corporate named insured one it liability coverage for its directors and officers and also its customers ok they want liability coverage there but then as to the us i'm a rino though they only want to you have coverage for the officers and the directors they want then that's a direct relationship between the insurance company and the insured here you're talking about the insured is trying to capture it's members whose vehicles are involved in the parade but the insurance company is not involved with going up to every person who's in the parade having them sign on or off respectfully they don't need to have my client sign off on it the only requirement is that the named insured sign off on it and in jones what the name insured did is we don't we reject you have coverage for all busy the customers we wanted for our officers but we rejected for all customers and that was sufficient and they are saying at the temple had yet signed off on it you're not having any kind of no no mr patten mr collins didn't need to sign off it's just that the temple knew he had to sign it just like the name insured in the jones versus federal case how can you solve my practical possibility problem so no ga case is ever held that a written rejection wasn't necessary when the policy otherwise broader language it says and insured is any person who uses with the express or implied consent of the named insured that motor vehicle to which the policy applies they used the phrase the georgia legislature used the phrase policy they did and they said to which the policy applies they didn't say as to which the u n coverage list the vehicle in georgia there is no standalone un policies everything is connected to liability policies for my client to use that parade vehicle in that parade on that day he had the permission of the arab because one he had a parade sticker that europe issued to him and on that day he had to have the permission of the arabs parade marshal to participate in this parade this is not a case where we're coming in here and saying he had blanket coverage for any possibility i mean we're not saying if he had gone down the road on a personal errand he would had coverage this is not a situation where we're contending he would have had you on benefits if he had been participating in a parade sponsored by someone other than this named insured but on this day he was in that parade because arab his club was having that parade they needed parade vehicles but they said it was ok see you just quoted the statutory language that says you have to provide this coverage for the motor vehicle to which the policy applies and you have already told us that even with the parade exception that this was not a scheduled vehicle that there is no property liability th attaching to the converted vehicle so how do you how do you square those two how is it a motor vehicle to which the policy applies because it says it applies all the while those vehicles are being used what says it apply for a vehicle endorsement it says there is liability coverage while a member is using parade vehicles owned by those parade members liability coverage applies only while the parade  used in parades going to and coming from that parade vehicle endorsement specifically says it applies to these parade vehicles owned by these members while they're in our parades and eleven which sets forth what provisions policies need to have in georgia without getting aid express rejection of that un coverage and what the statute says is that any policy issued in georgia needs to have or provide or offer coverage to these two categories two basic categories and the district court picked up on a good description of those two categories which is found in the dunn craft case but basically what the statute says is we're going to look at the named insured and any resident relatives of the named insured those people need to be offered uninsured motorist coverage no matter what they're driving ok we insurance company can look at the risk of those people if cetera and when they're issuing that policy so those people are known people and those people need to be offered uninsured motorist coverage no matter what their driving the other risk that the insurance company needs to provide you in coverage for unless is explicitly rejected is any vehicle that the policy applies to any vehicle that's that's listed on the policy i think an easier example is to look at a personal auto policy might my personal auto policy is going to provide uninsured motorist coverage to me my husband my kids no matter what car they're driving it in less i reject it in writing it's also going to provide coverage for anybody who's driving my car which is listed on my policy or my husband's car which is listed on our policy so for example if my next door neighbor's car is in the shop and she wants to borrow my car to run to the store they will cut it will provide coverage to her provided i give her permission to take my car when she's in my car it is not going to provide coverage to her when she's in her own car similarly if i had a babysitter that was that was taking my kid someplace and the babysitter was in my vehicle the babysitter now we're not talking about the kids because they're there under that st category but the babysitter would have coverage for herself in my vehicle if she was in her own vehicle that would not be something that my insurance would be required to cover so now we need to look at the policy in issue to europe temple and determine ok does the policy provide those require coverages because we all agree there wasn't a written rejection of those coverages in fact those coverages were provided europe so so of course there would be no written rejection because the named insured europe temple accepted them so let's look at the policy what the policy language provides to see see if it meshes with that so we look at it  says you st look at you who is an insured in under the policy to see if those those categories are in there and it says the shirt is any person or organization who qualifies it as an insured  is what we have here anyone occupying a covered vehicle which are the vehicles that are scheduled in the policy is is insured is covered for us coverage also the named insured which is year at temple is covered in any vehicle now obviously europe temple is not a person so europe temple cannot ride in a vehicle so that portion of the policy says that that you encourage is provided for the name insured for property damage only because that is really that you can have bodily injury to the year of temple you can only have bodily you can only have property other so so if you're  mirroring the un statute and it's providing this exact coverages that the us at shoot provides i don't think we'd be here that's the end of the story we're here because of the parade exception and how that how does that grade coming from a crane has nothing to do with uninsured motorists coverage really the only essentially red herring that that's placed in there or as as a district court calls it a novel and murky liability coverage therefore you need to make sure that coverage for him is rejected under the u s statute even though you have session to say that if you look at every single  case cited by either side you'll notice that the cases that find that there should be u n coverage or there needed to be a rejection or all cases where where the person seeking the coverage fits under that statutory category where they're either the named insured under the policy in this case or there any vehicle that's on the policy and we can go through them the jones versus federated case that was a vehicle that was owned by the named insured that somebody was a car dealership with the name the shirt so they owned the vehicle somebody was driving that vehicle so that that would be category two that we talked about roberson versus st cent ury that was a resident relative so that's category one it's named in short a resident relative of the name the sure fits in category one that that's a case where they said you need to have you have coverage or a written rejection do real another resident relative a father of the name and sure again you need a written rejection the district court relied upon the done craftsperson estate firm case that case was a little unusual because there was a question of fact that the woman was outside of her vehicle when the incident happened she was injured here and so she was outside of her vehicle so there was a question as as to will doesn't even relate to the vehicle fidelity there was no coverage when you had an employee in his own car per a year of temple member in his own car and and i think one of the closes cases i've  found and i can i can go on but you know they're all citing the research but one of the closest cases i found which is not in any of the briefs it's a recent district court case that just came out a few months ago state farm versus he was as an additional driver but he was not a named insured under the policy but his name was listed as additional driver so he was provided liability coverage under the policy in certain circumstances he gets in an accident driving his own vehicle which is not listed under the public so let's look at the two categories he's not a resident relative he was a live in boyfriend but quite exactly does that have to do with what because  it is it shows that just because you might be in church and insured under some provision of a policy of the doesn't mean that you're entitled to two and insured motorists coverage against that i mean i understand that the this which we've gone over and over and over again place and all of the cases that are interpreted in the statute right have interpreted did the language to the motor vehicle to which the policy applies to relate to a motor vehicle that's listed on there in the policy to which the policy plans the twenty saves i don't i just i didn't understand that that was the core issue  these other cases are different situations in which the policy because you're signing them didn't apply so the question of whether the policy in this case the motor vehicle to which the policy  so rather than live in boyfriends these two guys far as we know aren't live in boyfriend we need to talk about the specific facts of this case and while the policy applies to that section of the statute in georgia specifically find coverage is required and and that it is the motor vehicle to which the policy applies when that vehicle is listed under the policy so some of the cases i cited that are through some other provision in the policy that extends coverage to that year i don't know insurance policy that extends coverage to other because that the insured may use right you you can none of the cases interpret in the statute have that situation they all either have a listed vehicle or a named insured or resident relatives so so while there there could be a circumstance where that is the case there's not a single case that doesn't mean that it doesn't clearly apply to and if the policy says we will provide coverage for any vehicle that one of the named insured owners is driving with the permission of that vehicle zone even though why aren't we talking about whether there's anything in this policy that applies to this vehicle and the circumstance there's there's not the vehicles not listed might be that you're ar and and there's no policy of any members of your bar at temple what makes this case different of course is that it's a organization as opposed to a parson our  i don't understand why we're talking about what's been born from it well because the way the courts have looked at the definition of insured is they either look at the relationship which would be your example of  somebody in a rental car you're looking at that person is the named insured and they're in another vehicle or in this example i gave of you know by my self if i'm in another vehicle i'm always going to be covered sue in done craft to separate that so that's looking at who who it is in this case it would be europe temple and the other scenario is the vehicle what the vehicle is and then and and in that section  section that's where the vehicle needs to be listed there's there's no dispute that this vehicle was not listed on their supposed you're forty pages of of vehicles listed and this one was not on it was not supposed to be and there's no argument that it was so here we don't have under category one a named insured or the person that's that that's supposed to be covered by the statute and we also don't have under category two which is a permissive  un statute doesn't use the words listing ok that it what it says is no automobile or motor vehicle liability policy shall be issued are delivered by any insure in this state upon any motor vehicle unless it has this un indorsement and you are right vehicles covered can be describ policy provisions just as you pointed out but the step my frustration if we keep going over that over and over and over again i take statute to mean what the plain language ses and if you got something else to add i for one would welcome hearing it you can you can spend your three minutes in four seconds repeating the same thing if you want it it's up to you if i have stated everything i believe that i need to state so i appreciate it mr locke represents mr penn and i don't know if he has anything he wants to add bass got a minute move giving two beers if you want to say to me two minutes i will see them to put three minutes on the clock for of the circumstances i will assist the court i think the court's correct in focusing on the plain language and we've beat that worse to death but one of the things that i think it's helpful to compare this to is fleet policies there are insurance policies that are issued for a fleet of vehicles because it's inconvenient to describe them a lot of times there can be fleet policies where the vehicles that would be scheduled if you were to schedule them or attempt to schedule and they change so frequently that instead you give a description of a category of vehicles which is what we've done with the parade vehicles in this case because could you imagine the difficulty in scheduling each parade vehicle you have to take an inventory of all the owners of these policies and you have to figure out what they have they change these things regularly it's something that the members during the parades like to do they change these policies and so what you do in that case is exactly what was done in this case under the liability definition it says in addition to the schedule vehicles which we know aren't going to change regularly we know there's this category of vehicles that we also want to provide liability coverage for when they're being used in parades that's not what the parade vehicle provision says it says we're going to include  insured it doesn't say we're going to include coverage for all vehicles you buy our members in a parade well the two are nationally tied together when you look at the definition of insured under the parade endorsement it says we're going to end ad is insured these individuals while operating these vehicles in a parade are going to charge the people while they're operating the vehicle it does not say we're going to we're now listing all vehicles that our members might use in a parade well the same argument applies i think this click off it tried to say earlier that there are two ways you can you can be tied to a policy either as an individual or through the use of  a covered vehicle and those two kind of get tied together there but once you're named on that liability the statute is going to graft coverage unless there's a written rejection that rejection is what gives the insurance company the opportunity to alter the definition under the u n coverage and so i think that is the only thing that i wanted to provide to the court is sometimes it's helpful to think of this under comparison to fleet policies unfortunately and we might if in this accident was sorry under the temple policy were any payments made to fix the car the converted vehicle no there wasn't but had there not been enough liability coverage to cover the property damage