facts here that are completely agreed to stipulated to miss mclaughlin is entitle to her policy as indicated by the district we're not contesting that policy would be paid if on the other hand the district court decision eleven one of the three whole purpose of uninsured motorist is when i get hit by somebody who is negligent and lacks insurance then i should be able to get some coverage for that how does your construction of the statutes fit with that because there's no argument here that the person was negligent if they just did the whole recklessness and whatever didn't meet that standard then argument about who caused the accident in other words and so how does your argument even fit with the general notion of uninsured motorist coverage we have a lot of cases that go back decades literally that require that that language that i just read to you from eighty three eleven want to want to be enforced and that is there has to be a legal entitlement to recover you can't just show up i've got an uninsured motorist case because i was hit by an unanswered motorist for example the statute of limitations applies comparative women in essence because they were not legally entitled to recover under the statute that's no different from the situation that we are presented with here that the district court present was presented with here i can tell you that and  was not rejected but the basic point to point one is for new authorities not newly discovered authorities and secondly it's not for a new brief and who is one thing to say we believe relevant for issue number two is his case are all go to the same bar you know what if somebody is from a different town they don't hang out of that bar they can't do research in this era of technology and the internet and we know everything about the entire universe and what we can only find this case if we sit at the be their clear meaning and i've also in one instance one of those cases went to the mississippi supreme court the per curiam decision it was not and they issued no opinion but the only issue before them is the  however give us before we have to have a circumstance or that this record has ruled on x and then on appeal the parties bring up why they might bring up a supreme court which is there on public opinion for not precedent and secondly the opinion is actually from before the amendment it's a two thousand and eight event and it would make i would imagine that the mississippi court would have the district court here based its opinion on two things really one was the district court felt that there was some at least from the standpoint there was a perceived repugnancy between what i want in one of the two statutes uninsured however because you're not legally entitled to recover from your husband under that archaic area of your spouse of the unity we have a lot of cases where a spouse was to deny the right to recover against their s have contact or you can identify that vehicle you have no recovery just hard and fast that you can't recover unless you're legally entitled to under the language of want to warn the section o did you finish not answering the question are you trying to read it in a harmony have you read and have you finished reading the holding in harmony no i think i think that you can read those two in harmony the that the legislature within its purview decides what what is an uninsured and what is not an unanswered vehicle in mississippi the policy issue here isn't in lockstep with that with that statute and if the legislature wanted to intent otherwise and wanted to make it where the individual i'm sorry to interrupt if you're finished with them go ahead ok yeah i just have a question on mason if mason had been found to have acted in reckless disregard did block c have insurance and would that insurance have cover owner spouse or a because that's the specific issue we have here you can be in an uninsured vehicle and still you can be in an uninsured motor vehicle and still not be legally liable and that makes a lot of sense and i'm having trouble with that i'm like when will that really truly happen because the example here it was the big hole really uninsured or was it really the problem legally uninsured motor vehicle is always going to have the guy that either acts of reckless disregard and the insurance will cover it or doesn't actually work with disregard and nothing about why do we even make this amendment and that's i think that was language anyway just growing at the two points the first point he was there would be no instance just like you said where someone could recover in this situation and that's that's incorrect you can recover on your policy let me give you an you then dealing with the language of the policy where you could agree to where we wanted to there i mean the statute doesn't prevent state far from providing greater coverage for uninsured motorists and the minimum requirement the million dollars you could make it where the person isn't legally intolerant however they were just the cause of the accident i mean all of that we're dealing with the reason we're looking at a statute is because this was the statutory minimum u m coverage right  their coverage of just grow is correct we said that he was not correct and that should not be paid to the to the to ban your time is up i do have a question and i wanted to ask you before two thousand and nine with this amendment how would this same situation have worked you're saying that there is an opportunity because this kind of vehicle a motor vehicle  police protection touch for you begin your argument i have a couple of questions for you is as i understand it your original action that was removed to the federal court if you had some mississippi defendants and since they were trial court judge there determined that they were entitled to the statutory immunity and therefore at that point that was administrative remedies were exhausted by it where is there an explanation of what those room adiz are so we can that issue is there that you have to exhaust all misread remedies and i'm seeing an explanation of what that means you can proceed like you're dealing with the brain or case that state farm has provided to the court four  the supreme court action actually had nothing to do the statute as we are discussing today the supreme court action had was strictly based upon the reckless disregard portion of the of the unity clause there so we don't even really know what it was based on  that there's some can a little bit of procedural issues that i'm not that knowledgeable about that maybe affect my questioning on that but i will defer to mine colleagues of from mississippi on those detail opinion of the i was confused about that too because they cite that case all wrecked and they don't make it clear that that's a case involving different defendants from the same case when you read that case that's only dealing with the reckless disregard but then when you look at the appeal which was a separate number to appeal the finding as to the uninsured motorists there's just this the just what they sent us which i couldn't find online that just says affirm a warrant i couldn't find i looked for briefing and couldn't find any briefing and not just not police and fire police and fire is the area where you know hard stuff unless there's reckless disregard you're just out of luck but we could have other kinds of mississippi tort claims people that in fact would yield uninsured motorist coverage what's your response to that while you are quite simply if they're not entitled to community such as the police and fire protection and we don't need an injured others we need we have liability coverage at that point so wh earlier question is that always true are there cities where they just aren't sure that's the only i've never heard of a city that doesn't insure and that's entirely the point why would the mississippi legislature went ahead and added this amendment to eighty three eleven one of three and why did they also go up and fix one was it a mistake i don't know where you fixed it they made a point of one is what i'm saying why didn't they in other words are we having this question sure well i think i can explain that  think here we've got the current book you're referring to the legally entitled to recover language which seems to be the the magic language here perkins versus the insurance company of north america which was cited in the a statutory language of the legally entitled recover speaks to the fault of the overall operator not to the derivative liability of the insurance carrier this goes back to what mr banahan said in the fact that state farm is allowed to step in and argue comparative fault statute limitations causation and whatnot however they're not allowed to give make that as a cover sufficient saying that eighty three apply but not apply that's based on this perkins case they also mention that in the their argument that they they cite as coleman case and the coleman case says that insurance carrier has available to it all three eleven one of the three by that amendment in two thousand and nine created a statutory mandate before two thousand and nine ackman i don't doubt that the brain or case probably was right and it probably was properly decided at the time however the legislature saw what the issue was came in and what they believe all of them granted maybe their wording wasn't as spot on as it should have been but to fix this she's issue and now by doing that and passing this amendment to eighty three eleven one of the three including those in title to immunity in this is that the tort claims act it now in compas is them as being uninsured motorist and eighty three eleven one one a judge ard eight dissonance between the two not an agreement between the two and so that's the kind of last resort for judges is to find that the legislature you know kind of has this dissonance between two sections and trying to rectify it we really try to read them on harmony right so why doesn't mr banta hands construction of the statutes read them in harmony legal in title means what it says we don't and you can have these uninsured vehicles that in wouldn't and it would but by the passing of the two thousand and nine amendment that created an exception so there is where the everything comes in eighty three had to conclude that you can't rectify or reconcile why i want to want to three to get there to get where he got and i'm saying i'm we can do that but that's a last resort well  van hands approach not a way to reconcile the two that doesn't say well we're going to ignore legally entitled well first of all i didn't actually hear of a way that they could be read in mutual incorporated versus pool said that the entire purpose of the u n act is to maximize the remedial and humanitarian coverage that is provided we  for us to make some sort of broad statement something else for us to deal with the actual language of the statute and so just to say you need to be as broad as possible isn't going to get us to or need to be need to be as broad maybe is permissible under the language of the of statutes that we find that they can then i don't think any motivation to make you in coverage of ours possible is going to prevent us from do that and i understand your are however the point here being that the entire purpose of the passing of this amendment was to include these as unser motors there's no amendment regarding workers compensation as mr van spoke about earlier completely agree that is considered and that that's still fine you're not legally entitled recover however the legislator went and and imagine this is an exact scenario and in so doing that's the reason they passed as amendment or work through this hypothetical me do you agree that the driver of a b a call can be operating within the course and scope of his employment would still be reckless i do such as driving a fire truck and headed to a far but unfortunately runs a red light because he was looking at his cell phone so he's within the course and scope but he's reckless when he dropped runs through that red light because he's taking his  again your are this is the point here is that if that's the situation and there is no they're not entitled to statutory munity then we don't meet uninsured motorist we have liability coverage that's the whole point is they we mean  or the fire department will have an i'm sorry and that's where it's coming from and it is the city biloxi or the fire department that needs to have the insurance correct and it's one thing for the legislature to say i bet all the disability have the insurance i something else to be certain of it and this at least allows a situation and similar ones to what judge barto mention that if the city doesn't have and a lot of very poor cities in that in the state of mississippi and other governmental bodies would be tomato fire departments anything else that is a separate entity covered by government on unity that each of those of any of those didn't have insurance this would pick up the tab innocent scenario such as joe mentioned that then they wouldn't then yes i think i understand what you're saying to a point however bear in mind number one that you could still pursue a claim against the city or state or whatever the case may b and also the other act issue here is that that particular instance that is exactly the reason why we have uninsured mothers back in place judge payne said earlier it's it's almost like a common sense in the fact that we we as citizens of the state pay for uninsured motorist and we are for situations in which we are here struck by somebody who does not have insurance or if there is some sort of a issue when we look at someone that perhaps their insurance company their insurance policy has lanced or into the instance where their insurance company is insolvent or or all of these factory and now bringing their own differences situations and i agree with that but it's still really necessary that's not a very good term of art but you would agree that our duty is to harmonize as best we can if we can't if you have a statute you just can't reconcile those two then we have to go to all the other things about legislative history and i don't know what but if we can harmonize it if there's some way to read it logically together we got to do that right i would agree with think at the end of the day though what we have to look at is the bedrock of you in mississippi you in law is concerned liberal construing in favor of coverage and i think that's what we have to look at at the end of the day so if there is some sort of ambiguity or if there is some way that we can't read those two statutes together then case law has said we need to err on the side of coverage and even if to take that a step further has the uninsured motorist coverage as why anyone would have uninsured motorist coverage to be taken care of in a situation in which they get hit by someone who doesn't have insurance or thanks to the amendment someone who is st legally entitled to recover damages from a person or entity entitled to the unity of the mississippi tort claims act looking at the two statute that was just incorrect and is great but it just one right that on that particular point  talked about that a moment ago there are multiple instances where someone would be entitled to cover damages with a person who was covered of the mosquito claims that if they have they're performing we know that they're performing discretionary and they are negligent simply negligent you can recover if you can't recover against them and you have shown under the uninsured motorist act one o one you are legally entitled to recover therefore you'd have an uninsured motorist claim that you c police officer who doesn't slow down to go cautiously through the light of the fire truck that doesn't cautiously go through the life whether they're looking at the cell phone or just being an attentive it's not simple negligence when you know that you're you've got people on an interstate or a highway that you're crossing that you need to slow down or at least be somewhat cautious and in those instances where someone is in a high speed situation that they're just reckless quite frankly they throw care of the wind in the space bring court is determined that you recover under under this these provisions of that code section you can recover against the state actor you know the unities white to that extent if the legislature later want wanted to do this when they passed that amendment they could have had that opportunity they just didn't didn't do that both are also says he's going to agree that both are also said that the court should not rewrite the un act to include situations not expressly provided for under the guise of harder but i guess what i'm asking whether is in the briefing or and or lab received to be just in the briefing was just point made to him that at least would kick in in the situations we've been talking about if the driver had been reckless rather than negligent or you would have liability that was pointed out yes i think there's no doubt that that the court was aware it was made aware that if someone was acting with reckless disregard that was never an issue in this case because mr bishop and i stipulated i think fairly early on there was no issue of reckless