company to the betterment of the claimant in this case because we are protecting again we're protecting the insured against the agent has the knowledge if you say for example i'm one hundred thirty pounds and the agent looking at me can tell  hundred this kind of taxi driver this is what he does for a living and dr thompson happened to be a physician as well and dr promptly conditions were far far more serious than this runner in our supreme court specifically for if you thought they were so bad why would he give them up thinking that he would have to then get disability coverage with him i would have been in them in deference to a newer policy that doesn't make any sense here so going around those minor matters upon which all of us can occasionally make a mistake do we remember that we were hospitalized that we went to the emergency room eight years ago and sometimes we don't remember that in the context of application remember you have a existing medical condition of heart disease or biased or anything else that's not where we have to wind up let me suggest you that we have a solution a solution is this case was decided in  regard to the harvard right recession if it's twofold as we as we know the first is the misrepresentation of the other disability insurance and the second is the service and patient of the health history with regard to the other insurance which was the subject of the initial argument rely on what the applicant says you have he has the obligation to tell the truth and that was not done here over insurance was not some kind of hidden requirement if it's for that information right on the policy it's question number five he that point i think it's important not to put the cart before the horse we've got to figure out first what this so called agent to test what he has and if he's not a broker what do you know well what do you know about these other policies about this country policy remember now there was there were three other policies that he had and he only told us about the problem in policy but he had one from century insurance company and what did you after know he knew then that that nafta the agreement in writing on the profit an application even if we were somehow to stretch and say that somehow yakker do these things even though there's no evidence that he did and in that regard dr nassif doesn't even submit a declaration in the lower court saying that he did so there's no evidence of that even if so it's insufficient to raise the trial issue because it doesn't relieve dr nasser from his own responsibility for his own misrepresentations there were other arguments made in response to this on the syriani issue that's only fair the outlook in this paying for something which is going to be issued later on so there's a bridge time and the law has said there is temporary insurance in between the application on the policy when you pay the premium and to memorialize that conditional for third twenty thousand dollars now we know that the initial participation limits are ten thousand dollars so it's going to be limited by the issue of participation guidelines and the size of temporary insurance issue is really an issue because that only takes next argument with section ten three sixty nine twenty six can ensure the same risk twice again sounds fair i have something worth one hundred thousand dollars i've placed on two thousand dollars policy with company and company i lose one hundred thousand dollars item i don't case read thompson you know there's no problem what's your response to constant times and says that the company the interviewer the applicant doesn't have any obligation to disclose my or in dispositions for things that he's not aware of it ten months later and in fact i have that you went right into another one of my points to counsel told me something i forgot in his argument he didn't meet the code understatement this policy under the decision letter and it's enclosed a check for the twenty one hundred represents the return of all full premium already cashing the check or attention for more than thirty days will constitute your second so the rescission there is no case law there is no a there is no argument that that is a proper application and one last point as to your honor's point as to the reading from the record as to the irregular as they get it isn't cause them to see images and all that was before the surgery