and goes on to resolve that conflict in favor of the convention with safety national does not reach however in what no case has result is whether the convention somehow supersedes the party's own contractual agreement on how to resolve a conflict the convention requirement of recognition of a contractual agreement to arbitrate is what we're talking about this case is about whether the parties will be allowed their freedom of contract to govern their own resolution of conflicts within their contract the convention does that must govern all political employee benefit plans this convention simply says article two that each contract in state shall recognize an agreement in writing in which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration unless it cetera et cetera et cetera so the convention is not saying like a receptive example you must arbitrate all international disputes no it saying if the parties agree we're going to force that but here the policy by its own terms resolves the conflict itself by amending out the arbitration provision specifically paragraph seven says in the event any terms of this policy which included arbitration clauses are in conflict with the statutes of the jurisdiction where the insured property is located such terms are amended  preempts everything here the convention does not say it preempts everything it's not it's not unlike a recess for bidding a contract to apply state law this convention is only permitting contract to arbitrate to be enforced but if the parties who are sophisticated parties here put in their own contract which is not in every contract it was not in the safety national case certainly wasn't discussed if they put in their own contract we agree that we're going to amend this out if it conflicts with the louisiana state i mean basically though in the first part of your argument you just challenging safety national because safety national said that the convention did preempt the anti arbitration provision only if you actually were to take to the field of legal battle so to speak and say which is the statute or the convention safety national resolve we're not here to re argue but here we're suggesting that parties are not taking that deal we are a court needs to make a determination as to what preempt what because the parties by their own terms are saying if there's a conflict here's a here's all old boy policy that goes all over and we end up in a state where this conflicts we term we agree as a sophisticated party that we drop surely they're sophisticated enough to know of the convention that was enacted decades ago or safety national that was a situation where a court needs to enforce an arbitration agreement which is what the treaty calls for when the parties have already eliminated that our tradition of rayment by their own contract by their own freedom to contract what i was going to say before is that the convention obviously is all about enforcing freedom to contract that's the purpose of it is we want to make sure that each contract in state shall recognize an agreement national it is not rivers preempted at all absolutely i'm not challenging that but you don't get to a situation where you have to analyze the treaty versus the state law because the treaty is saying just to enforce what the parties freely contract and if the parties freely contract to amend out a provision which is in conflict then it's settled it's done it's this convention is all about freedom of contract and nobody can suggest that lloyds is unsophisticated in its form contract that it includes there in the morrison vs amway case this court made it clear that whether or betray should agreement is a political is an issue governed by ordinary state law contract interpretation not in that case by the federal law favoring arbitration no you don't get to the f a a they say your this court said in morrison you don't get to that because first you have to look at within the arbitration itself within the agreement is that even a  obviously ordinary contract interpretation says amended out in the event any terms are in conflict such terms are amended to confirm to set settings so we don't get into a decision that safety national made over whether there's a reverse preemption or preemption so here they are your argument he says first something and that is that this is a contract case that's all it is nothing more than a simple contract contract case the parties worked out a reaction has nothing to do with that they worked out among themselves how they would resolve a conflict we're not saying this is not difference is safety national didn't have this kind of a clause did not have a thing for me to statue because it wasn't that issue was reaching nowhere it wasn't discussed and in fact one of the motions you carried over the argument was our motion for judicial notice just to take notice of the fact if it's even necessary that all the briefing in safety national both at the district court and in this court attached what was described as the policy terms and that had no nothing like this no conformity statute vision and indeed even if you didn't do that safety national doesn't address that doesn't stand for that here you're just  reaching and i go back to the fact that the whole concept of the convention was to enforce freedom of contract agreements this agreement doug morgan and i represent the apple ease you need to speak up a little bit yes you're on the policy here contains a written agreement to arbitrate it's in the policy and this court has just noted has specifically held that the convention which applies to this agreement supersedes twenty eight sixty eight and this court is also recognize that the convention is the highest law of the land the case law that we cited in our briefing that addressed conformity caused specifically recognize the logical rationale that a conformity clause does not operate or apply unless the state law that is potentially in tubful it with a policy provision is even a political one the first of its in other words if the state law is not a political one of the facts or is invalid through preemption and that state law is without effect and therefore cannot create an actual conflict between that state law and the policy provisions well because the parties can contract around and then there's no you don't doubt th los were yes your honor that they do argue that that it was specifically agreed to but you know i will reiterate there is no proof in the record regarding the parties intent to specifically contract around it or the trace in back to the case law from this circuit the four circuit and other jurisdictions that have held they can for a clause as do not operate or apply when the state law that's potentially a conflict is invalid through preemption the arist cases that were mentioned earlier are one example but there was a case from the southern district of florida where the courts specifically addressed the f a a in connection with an arbitration provision and they specifically held that the f a a preempted the florida state law that the insured argued allowed them to go to court as opposed to arbitration and they recognize that the conformity clause couldn't apply because that state law was preempted by the f a a and therefore cannot create a conflict for purposes of applying the conformity was and we would also argue that the the rationale approach followed by the course that i just mentioned is supported by the wording of the clause itself it reads in the event any terms of this policy are in conflict with the statutes of the jurisdiction and the words in the event and are in conflict necessarily contemplate that the conformity clause only applies in the event there is an actual conflict so it's eggs here magic for a court to first determine whether there is an actual conflict and to do that a court has to determine whether the state law that is potentially in conflict with the provision of the policy is even a political under the facts or is valid under the political law and as we've said before the convention clearly applies to this arbitration we'd also point out that mcdonald's doesn't sightsee any authority whatsoever in support of its position that a conformity clause can apply without first determining whether the state law that is potentially in conflict with the policy provision can can apply in that circumstance and you know we would argue that the failure to cite anything authority in support of that position concerning the approach and analysis should be should constitute a waiver pursuant to certain presidents that all cite any cases at all they say it's a case of first impression but there are cases from this circuit for circuit no other jurisdictions that have specifically said that a conforming clause does not apply what i will say is that each of those cases the court in each of those cases the courts when it threw their preemption analysis or they went to the analysis of whether under the facts of the case the state law that was being argued even applied to the facts that case other words there in one of the cases the court ultimately determined that arista did not apply to preempt but it was based on facts that are relevant to this situation but the important takeaway from those cases is that a conformity clause in it of itself cannot or does not allow a court to forgo the preemption analysis insurance policy and it we would argue as well your honor that it would be an illogical to allow a state law to void a provision of a policy at the inception of the policy without first determining whether that state law even applies to the case based on the facts and circumstances of the case it just wouldn't make sense and in our view these cases follow that rationale or logic and the legal principle is that again the wording of the provision requires there to be an actual conflict and for there to be an actual conflict the state law has to be valid or clickable of the facts in the first place and so if it's preempted based on the facts of the case then that state law is invalid and is without affecting can't create that conflict that's required to even have  though they purported to be under state law or whatever right we would cause you look to it says in conflict with the statutes of the jurisdiction well the statutes of the jurisdiction are generally point and therefore the convention supersedes this statute twenty two eight sixty eight in what it was going to say earlier is that you know essentially madonna was asking this court to allow clause to circumvent an international treaty the convention which again has been recognized as the highest law of the land and must be enforced against all prior inconsistent rules of law and specifically held that this convention supersedes the very statute that mcdonnell argues voice arbitration provision of the po difference arisa mandates a set of federal law to apply no matter what the parties think about what state law says unemployed benefit plates the convention here just in forces and contract freedom to agree to arbitrate i think it's worth looking at article two it says each contract inkscape shall recognize an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake t within the meaning of the article shall refer the parties to arbitration unless it binds that the said agreement is no in void inoperative or incapable of being performed as we argue that clause doesn't apply it's essentially inoperative because of the good for me to statute that treaty and the convention itself makes it clear that it's all about empowering freedom to contract it's not about preempting contract it's not about a federal law preempting it only enforces it if the agreement is proper and not for example in operative here it's inoperative it's solved by the parties themselves this is a very sophisticated party who in two thousand and fifteen puts puts in a policy a conformity to statute provision that they know is going into louisiana that they've been subject to many many cases in louisiana as as you said you know need they didn't put in there this overrides they didn't put in there that indicates they didn't say any of that they allow to conform reset you they presented that in for me to statute provision to our client they issue well but it said the statute says i'm sorry the contract that you rely on says in the event any terms of this policy are in conflict with the statutes of the jurisdiction so we're not saying quote conformity as such we're saying conflict with the statutes of the jurisdiction and the conflict has arisen because the arbitration provision of this very same policy is in conflict with safety national right and then they go on to say such terms are amended to conform to the statutes not such terms such conflicts shall be referred to the courts it's not asking for a judicial determination or a preemption analysis or a legal battle it's simply saying if you've got this situation we default to that we give into that otherwise you're eliminating freedom to contract which is the whole purpose of that the convention is simply here that's why it's so different from those who receive cases is it simply allowing the freedom to room we're not saying that at all we're just saying that as long as you've identified a conflict and safety national makes it clear there's a conflict so you've identified the conflict the parties for their own terms resolve it it's we're we're we're we're handling it in family we don't need to go to domestic court i'm a big deal i'm a big supporter of freedom of contract but i'm afraid that's a bit of a should be left when the whole