at this point i would primarily rely on my brief runners i believe there was just some a few key mistakes made by the trial court when he was the trial judge seem to not be seen to be accusing my client i'm suing  someone else is the driver isn't sure and that's actually not true by operation of law it was her insurers so we would argue that this is not under the direct action statute because the driver could not have been named as a party defendant so in short she's not seeking benefits from a third party there is no there is a third party toward case pending in state court that is not actually i believe i maybe just misspoke i believe judge cohen maybe ruled in favor not asking which judge i'm trying to get the party straight right now yes or do you say your name lose your eye is the last name of  selfish you look your own insurer first right under this under this michigan statute that's correct your honor so in order for her to win she has to be not insured then right yes your honor that's correct it would you do with them i'm looking at page twenty two of your brief i guess where you're talking about the do shot case and forgive my pronunciation i'm that's correct i believe is that a correct quote from the deuce charge opinion on page twenty two your brief on the policy of his mother trainer is that the same woman i believe it is your own of the she's in all three of these cases one way or the other i believe so your are and in this one she has insurance and the other one she doesn't have insurance now i believe it was over i wrote the didn't have insurance your honor the case i'm talking about the drama case you're also representing her in that case right it's your your own i mean i asked you if in the drama case the theory of your case was that she lacked insurance but the theory of your case in the i guess it's probably your law firm but not by you in the do shut case is that she has does draw not have insurance or not i guess my question because in one case you're saying she does in another case you say she does not that it resolves this case but it seems a little puzzling so i thought i might ask you if your honor i don't don't know levi college i don't believe you see how it's a little inconsistent to be arguing in one case that unless a unless the insurance ran out between these two accidents i guess that's possible appeal because this case doesn't involve her i guess obviously they should've spent more time reviewing their case judge let me ask another question this my only other question that in your brief you don't cite the the one hurdle that i see to ruling in your favor which is the fourth case so it's strange that you wouldn't cite the binding precedent of the circuit that most clearly goes against you i that's i guess problematic to me when when you file a brief in this circuit you don't cite our precedent which at least arguably goes against you that's problematic yes or no call is it isn't the difference between this case and ford ford was not insured by the policy from which they saw coverage right that right about that that was my understanding and i know for sure just appears everywhere like sailing you know i mean is that right or maybe it's wrong i don't know or you don't know i don't know ok that's fine you are the party and all of those i mean your client is the party in all of those cases yes but i do confess i didn't appear know in that case just so i understand the law in that case judge even cone decided the legal issue the way you want us to decide it today is that correct that's correct your honor and what is that again i mean i'm a bit confused maybe i'm genuinely confused here but state farm was the move in to you know get rid of this case the motions granted now we're all here and nine or stand if unless i'm mistaken i really might  be it seems that you're now saying the district court should not have grant granted your motion that's a fair assessment and understanding how this came about requires an appreciation of first of all the  and he got it but he didn't like it so you weren't even if you weren't even served in that case as far as i know we weren't i don't we didn't i once was down and we didn't answer so now three months later we have over his case and the motion for summary dismissal action was brought and i think by you by us there was no obviously no discussion about ford motor company or the jurisprudence concerning remov the concern was i think to have both cases in the same court wherever it was that they ended up if you go back and look at the motion for summary disposition that was filed in this case it's very perfunctory and it basically says no more than judge rosen granted summary disposition in the other case although you should also granted in this case if i understand your position in elvira's case which is before the court for argument today if i case in this case ultimately it does not matter and that's because of lee let's throw but i do have one i was going to make one comment on on the ford motor company case that i didn't really emphasize in the  in the brief it's disregard the most obvious flaws it's disregard of the language that was purporting to apply after acknowledging the limited target of the statute which was in wisconsin and louisiana  direct action situations the court said and bear with me for a brief quote if its language and compass is other situations we should not limit application of the amendment to the specific conditions which gave it birth a proposition with which i don't think anybody can take issue however the land the apartment languages if the language and compass is a first party no fault insurance claim is not a direct action against uninsurable policy of liability insurance first of all and all fall policy is not a policy of liability insurance and in these cases the insured is the person's soon obviously you're not going to get yourself second i'm true would it i mean if  she was not insured under the policy in this accident is it your position that there would be jurisdiction then or with nothing yes i don't think that's what we all thought this case was that i was asking the court to overrule ford motor company right and that the case law i looked at said that one panel can't do that right i was not abandoning my second issue i said but what i had i mean this case doesn't even present a question that would implicate ford as you're now presenting it because she's just suing her own ensure for all practical purposes here isn't that right that is that is correct  hard for a panel of this court to hold that three judge panel overruled another three judge panel because we have this strange doctrine in our circuit that you can't do that understand that even if you do it you have to pretend it didn't happen well i don't know that's our doctrine i can't help it i mean that's what many of is there a way in which we can distinct distinguish forward what is the way to distinguish for it and if you just say well here's my problem with the glib way of distinguishing it you can say well in ford they weren't insured but but they're a proper they are injured by their property is injured by the by the instrumentality that caused the injury and and since the owner of that instrumentality had a a an insurance policy that paid directly of under the statute under the under the policy that implements the statute that's two questions and i'll answer the last one first in ford motor company policy could not have been deemed a substitute for liability insurance because the claim was being made by the entity who was responsible for the damage it was the ford motor company not suing because of that he's suing because of the fact that there's a contract that they assert a policy that they assert protects them or provides for them right he's not suing based on his own injury and negligence it's be hard to do that no my point was not on the on the basis of the other party's negligence either but to add a bit to that extent it parallels it parallels this case right i don't think so in each case you have you have somebody who is suing somebody so you're suing under a contract that benefits you right even though the person even though the person who bought the contract the primary named or whatever you call an insurance jargon is not the tortfeasor right in both of those cases in both our case and poured that's the case right well if not what's the difference in both our case and in four this is what i'm trying  struggling to find out i mean i'm sympathetic with your position but it's got to parse when we write it you know the claimant in ford motor company was not named or defined insured under the property protection coverage why not seems like they are it's anyone who's property is injured gets coverage why isn't that a defined insured well in that case it's a contract which says pay him why isn't that mak the differentiation is that in ford the ford motor company was not a defined insured under the policy where as in this case before us because the plaintiff was an occupant of the motor vehicle owned by  you're not a defined insured if the policy says people in your category will get paid under this policy that's what a defined insured means is not mean you'll get pay if certain things happen here's a policy which says you will get money if x happens and you get the money when x happens why doesn't that make you a divine insure in michigan by statute in overall policy provides insurance to a named insured spouse a resident relative of either and this is in turn and owners property that are insured provides insurance for them too right it does not define that as an insured it's just the word getting in uses provide it makes them an insurer but doesn't use the word insured as that difference be strange if that made a difference for federal purposes it does not define the person receiving property protection benefits as an insured it simply says a policy says we will pay for any property damage caused by the use of your vehicle fault regardless i see that as a difference it seems like a you have to concede that it's kind of an artificial difference and but  wouldn't be i wouldn't be harping on i understand i understand the question now can i ask a question about the viability from your perspective of the line of cases that i mean that was that was if you know was a first party case that was just just two or judge kennedy's case in one nine hundred seventy eight it predated ford motor company by four years so my position obviously is that no it is longer viable because i don't think that ford motor company that there's much love from ford motor company after really look strong so as if you're defined insured the direct action amendment doesn't apply because you're suing your own insure that they would appear to be consistent with your theory that your profound today yes to nine hundred eighty cases both by judge new blat perfectly consistent with what we're arguing here thank you