and then goes on to define a relative as someone related to the named insured or his or her spouse by blood or marriage or adoption there's that relationship one med's that's based on a marriage cease be insured under this policy for purposes of uninsured motorist and met paid coverage under the three policies that will get into the minute but he not only has to be a relative but a resident relative which means he fact and the facts are pretty as far as the residence and the relationship are i think pretty much undisputed and that is that blake i would know where his father his father was a david miller david was married divorce david the dad continued to reside with me for another six years until he died in two thousand and nine and then we come to you so basically blake was with  then the construction which is more favorable to the insured is the one the court has to choose not should choose a mate use its discretion but must choose so the question is is it is that all reasonable to argue that  has as pointed out if the step guys are just of the worst that's no longer the stepchild is that a reasonable argument yeah i guess so i mean that's really a role it's a liberal and it's a reasonable argument but is it reasonable to make the other argument that says when they want to use a step parent dies that doesn't mean that his children had no longer stepchildren either in practice in reality how the  the court could get is that would be a reasonable result the question then is not a question before the trial court or this court the question is is it reasonable to take the opposite view and your hon some relationship that was not at one time based on marriage and i don't say that if it's based on marriage as this one was then there's a death or divorce case like  facially reasonable and is once it's a reasonable interpretation then coverage should be afforded that's one step through issue was reached there's it doesn't it's not discretionary it's for or against now we would certainly idea that this record is absolutely crystal clear that he was a resident of for six months on the trial court one stupid discussion about the fact that prior to december the courts thought that there was this room issues but i don't i think court record could dream house exact same transcripts the exhibits that were attached to the cross motions and determined that as a matter of again it became moot with what the trial court decided on the relative issue and again we think that it's just really hard to argue that our position is who we are unreasonable no reasonable person could adopt that exactly the argument we're making today insurance went into the under the sun gers life insurance and the relationship was if it literally if it would be no longer existed because the whoever that to just make one notable distinction in regards to that so even if we were to assume you know and i do wonder if we were to apply this relationship by pretty standard to this film or stepmother and i mean this is and this was obviously taken after the fact of the accident so it's it's not on the day of the accident but i think these circumstances are their relationship if we were to apply this relationship  was not conceive that we should even go there to begin with but if we were if we were making this argument then i think examining you know those family ties and whether she really was morally bound to him i father again either by the guys or there's divorce and that's just the luck of the law or state well we got lucky they got divorced two days before i mean what do you do about that right  i'm sure they have the great to limit coverage they how the right to make a contract with the trams you know contract that will be adhered to by by another party you know meeting of the minds on and so forth  fact that once a marriage ends you know legally whether by through divorce i mean that is it you know that is the stopping point there it's not it's not against public affinity in relation to if there were sun and long and i believe it was also for an insurance coverage in that case and the side of law there you know argued that he even after the divorce his wife which was the insur you know the court there there's a lot of what it should have found that with the changing times of the changing times of society and how you know relationships change and so on and so forth the question find that there was still a relationship but i would like to say that i don't believe there are i mean if you view all of the evidence in the record if you consider all of the testimony that was provided on i i just don't believe that that there was i mean the primary residence again and life of me when you've got the th circuit nine states and the i r s all supporting their position and making that determination going back eighty years prior to the relevant date misc just how you can argue with a straight precedent in this state says you have to choose that and in the trial court was bound by that the nd major point i'd like to make is that i don't think under this circumstance a fet specific test as to whether there's live in your house invite him to stay in your house and they live there for six months i mean that by definition sets forth a relationship you don't invite strangers in off the street obviously there's a relationship there court would decide on remains and doesn't matter where there's a relationship infinity or not we have to satisfy both programs but what monument would be is if you satisfied that residency wrong then that's enough of relationship that if the court decides as a matter of law it can survive the death of the spouse or the dissolution then there's no need to have a trial over how close they were bad because the policy said my marriage in the marriage ended and therefore he's not even sure now i don't know if that's a correct reading and certainly my reading he did go on to mention about the questions are yes it's a fun case interesting