arising from such participation that provision which is as a matter of law and corporate into the contracts of insurance and forcible as a matter of contract law section two forty three of the insurance code surplus that part policyholders can participate in under two through four is the divisible surplus which is results from application of section two hundred three our interpretation is consistent with the contemporaneous legal authorities that were issued at about the time that these statutes were not acted and specifically i'm speaking about wherein two forty three does it say exactly in the states in the country life policy the provision that was purported to be included to comply with section two twenty the language of the contract at two twenty four which talks about sure plus he's talking about divisible surplus and divisible surplus by definition is the surplus in which all the polls are entitled to participate in mandated by two twenty four are included in the participating policies that the companies have issued a division insurance didn't get involved in this case they did under dividends and that's just what the policies provide in short there is no term or construction twenty four one that mandates contractual remedy a contractual  to be clear we believe that the language of our policy is clear and unambiguous and the analysis should begin and end with our policy language to twenty four which we don't believe is inconsistent with our policy not sure that it followed that new york as i recall and acted there first mandatory distribution statute and if i'm correct make you know seven so that i'm not sure about the timing on all of them but yes there was a set of proposed bills states picked up some of them not all of them picked modified candidly i i'm not aware of a state that's picked up any bill exactly as it was written i think legislatures look at it and decide what they but the point that i really want to make is that what we're dealing with here is a contract right it's a policy and so we have to point to the duty that is owed by the insurance company to the policyholder as you heard earlier  it evidences an intent to go a different direction to achieve a different result the only case that the plaintiff cites and i mention it because it's the only place the plaintiff cites that speaks in terms of a section to twenty four no less than twelve times that i've been active in this area and there were one hundred ten years they have never adopted a mandatory distributions in illinois they have always maintained what even the plaintiffs concede never changed the plaintiffs says they were bad things going on in new york city fair enough but illinois is not new york and illinois is not massachusetts and all of these legislatures for the general assembly here they have the right to make policy decisions i will close by saying that this is a contract case they have to show if you do that we are to distribute them and a mandatory defined portion of the surplus we believe that our contract is clear and should be enforced as written and we believe reserve not to exceed specified percentages that those are maximum percentages it contravenes the annotated code that was published at the time the statute was and now adopted which said that section two forty three establish maximum and that same annotated code analogized section two forty three to the contingency reserve laws in new york in massachusetts in pennsylvania the provisions of the put a limit on routine surplus is simply wrong essentially would say that contingency reserve limitation serves no purpose and it would say that the right given two to four to participate  surplus which is by definition divisible surplus has no meaning at all it essentially says that the companies notwithstanding the clear legislative history and clear language of two forty three have unfettered discretion they did