i am anti stacking language in the policies is ambiguous and therefore would be construed not to allow we can truth construe to allow stacking as opposed to the language of the policies the policies have identical apparently rely primarily on hon and johnson that's correct actually i think that the court relied on hunting johnson to some extent obviously correct the court yes that's correct so the language a little ground work and then i'll go me to check it there are two ways to approach this case and i want to do it address both of them ok one of those cases has to do with whether or not there are separate insurers because if there are separate insurers and the poli insurance which conclusively similar names i think that goes to the first argument the question is are there separate insurers and if they have the same name progressive in there  large print and you have to look beyond that to find what the company is and they say therefore it cannot be understood by the by an insured now of course we're dealing with a legal fiction here as we know this is no one or insurance policy and i don't suggest that any insurer would look at this and know who their insurer was exactly but the question here is if you read the insurance policy if you take a look at the terms of the insurance policy does it tell you who the company is and it absolutely does that if you take a look at the policy it tells you on the declarations page this is the second page of this problem it tells you what's listed on the declarations page and the very last thing is it tells you the company providing the insurance one of the things that will is talked about here is under the definition of we us and our what does that mean that says the company that on the declarations page now if we look at the two declarations pages we see and i got this highlighted we see the progressive preferred is listed on one professor progressive preferred insurance company and on the other progressive american insurance company read out of the policy what the policy says this policy uses the word company in only two places on the stack page and it's where it says progressive sorry one place for each policy it's where it s progressive preferred insurance company and where it says progressive american insurance company you would look in vain if you were looking for any other mention of the word company if an insured is looking at that page to determine what the name of the insurance company is they cannot ignore the language that says progressive american insurance company for example that would violate i think any construction even including common sense instructions that you have to give  ect to the language that's there you cannot ignore that it says that what does that mean if it doesn't mean that's the company the progressive up above is easily understood by any insured prefer generally to the cost elation of companies that are progressive but if you're looking for the company which issued the insurance you have to read what it says and it says progressive american insurance co and it says progressive preferred insurance company small letters and as i say i don't expect anyone knows or cares until the acts of this happen when they go back to it but at that point they have to read the policy they are doing to read the policy and that's what this policy says if that's the case if there are two separate insurance companies the other side concedes the somehow and there there is only one insurance company in regard to this then the question is is the anti stacking cause ambiguous in the bath sense and by its language it clearly does not now let me refer to the parker case and the hawn and johnson cases particularly because that was the question in the hawn and johnson traces there were distinctions made in the polic between insurance provided by us and insurance from other sources and because of that particular language the insurance provided by us in distinction from other sources that the court said uninsured would understand when we say it's money and power and so on in the policy that we're talking about insurance provided by us what parker pointed out is that language was not in the usa a policy policies did not have any sort of language drawing a distinction between policies provided by us and other sources and the they also pointed out in the parker policy that the proration clause which uses we and our and so on those terms does not make that anti stacking clause confusing for that reason alone and that's about that language it starts out that says if there is other applicable under insured motors to cover each other applicable under insured motors coverage makes no reference to hull many insurers are involved says other applicable under insured motors coverage any reasonable person reading that would understand that we're looking for another policy that has that coverage and it now works the other side complain the word coverage rather than policy and policy would have been a bad turn to use but i note that the statute uses the term insurance other similar insurance and i would say that other applicable under insured motorists coverage is even clearer than the statute is there are different ways it can be said and there's no ambiguity in that the next says the total amount of under insured benefits recoverable from all sources  doesn't just say all sources it says under insured benefits recoverable from all sources that means other under insured motorists coverages because that's where you get those benefits there's nothing confusing about that it has nothing to comparison of other sources with something else and the something else was policies issued by us that was the point of on and johnson that's not a point that juxtaposition is never there it's never never other compared the other source is all by itself isn't that significant it's other what is other mean what are you comparing the other two and in horn and johnson the other was policies issued by us so don't have others so you don't make that comparison but even if you did have the other in this case there's no reference in the policy to policies you should buy off so you don't have that juxtaposition you don't have that and then finally the language says the total amount recoverable shall not exceed the amount provided by the one policy with the highest limit of liability and that's construed to be ambiguous  court thought that there was some ambiguity in regard to that because it said the one policy with the highest limit as opposed to any one policy with the highest limit so that the court and opposing counsel would have us believe that if we have a situation where you have two policies and one is three hundred limits and one is two hundred limits this is find it applies they only get three hundred but if you have two policies and one is two hundred fifty and the other is two hundred fifty  all of a sudden becomes ambiguous and they get five hundred i don't think that's a reasonable reading of this i think that the features of the language that says be one policy says one policy that would provide you only the one limit i would note also if you take a look at the statute which is on this page with the language is very similar in the statute and there's no consideration of ambiguity in regard to that it's simply not ambiguous and i would point out th also a tension with the word higher or highest the word higher in the statute supposedly posit the idea that you'll not only have to wear it you can have more than two the word highest seems to bother the idea that you have more than two but it can also apply to two i don't think that creates an ambiguity what we're looking for is a simple statement that insurers can read and i think when you're talking about the one policy having the highest limits there is no ambiguity in regard to that there is nothing and figures about this provision to go on altho i've mentioned to already go on and repeated again you don't then look for the we end our language in the proration clause and company no where does it say that the company providing this insurance has progressed to the preferred insurance company progressive america trust company on decorations it just has different names progressive and progressive appears in several different places on the decorations company and there's no question about that and that's the distinction between this case in part because of the partner case the policy provided if this policy and some other policies clearly different policies the ambiguity arises regardless of whether it's other an insurer and that situation the average purchaser of insurance to say no wait a second that only applies if there's some other policy out there is there some other company providing a policy provides coverage because i haven't paid for that and you know that's reasonable i think i can because that case is actually irrelevant regardless because it was whether or not it the phlox whether or not the california statute which is different it doesn't talk in terms of policies that actually talks in terms of coverages and even the majority in that case the statute is a little more  terms of whether or not the statute applies in this situation of the situation again when you've got two companies providing the same coverage and two companies provided to come in one company provided your policies are going to look in that situation already calculated the fact that you could have multiple accidents involving uninsured motorists because the coverage only coverage is not limited to one vehicle the coverage is not an intimidator the name is sure you've got multiple insurers involved with multiple vehicles or even pedestrians they've already calculated in their premium the fact that you could have multiple accidents involving multiple uninsured motorists and so they're very calculated in both premiums for that they're not they're not they're getting fighting about who pays what or how to cover a sham but they're not intending to protect insurance company as far as being able to extend less coverage when it's actually receiving money for time essentially that's that's that's the bottom line here policy refers to other policies providing some when sure if there's nothing ambiguous about that and terms of whether or not there's one policy or two policies or three policies providing a choice voters coverage but where  the ties that he starts out with these the word store says i view i am coverage not policies providing line coverage that's where the ambiguity arises sources can mean policies it can also mean companies t multiple accidents involving uninsured motorists at the same time but they've already calculated that risk and charging a premium for both policies or because the policies apply here respective you know the first issue the mr wagner addressed just briefly was the whether this is an ambiguity but how to read the company i think we've pretty well thought that but i would just point out again that if one of the exercise of diligently trying to find the company that issued the joints and you look for that you have the company's name there it's the only use of the word company i don't think you can be misconstrued you're not i don't think a reasonable entitled to overlook that i think you have to see it if it's there and it is there and i think that's a very simple point if we do go on to the next step and we treat this as though there was a there were one company major argument we heard is that the word sources is ambiguous and it does not track the statute you talked about that as well first of all the cases that used that were concerned about the word sources we're talking about other sources first of all not all sources other sources and we're comparing it with insurance policies issued by us so they're making the distinction between the should buy that company and other sources this does not do that i would also point out if you take a look at the statute the statute doesn't you use the word policy religiously do i wish that the company use the word policies i kind of do because the mr wagner wouldn't have anything to say but our language is rich limits of liability of all coverages the very same word that's used in the progressive policy there's nothing that demands that you would use the word policy if it can be used but you can also express it as coverages and you could express it as under insured benefits from all sources and it's nothing unclear about that simply because the word policy is not being used there was an argument talking about how there were two premiums and therefore there should be two limits and of course judge can be pointed out the obvious which is what every you have to policies with  under insured motors benefits there will be two premiums and if the anti stacking causes to apply it will apply in a circumstance where there are two premiums mr wagner demonstrated extraordinary ackermann today in talking about how you compute premiums i don't know that that's true and certainly not in the record i expect that the premiums are computed on the basis of the anti stacking language as well but i don't know that at all certainly  his argument sort of branched over into a reasonable expectations argument and washington does not recognize reasonable expectations that is washington requires that insurers read the policy and it will reward the reasonable expectations in regard to the policy language and will enforce that policy language as an ordinary consumer would understand it but it doesn't reward reasonable expectations based upon things that are not in the policy