this appeal is whether or not a normal bill insurance policy should pay all the owners with a one million dollars each occurrence when they run short motors coverage provides a total of three million dollars in coverage for clinton's claims on the district cour dollars in coverage per injured person the policies premium did not occur because of the kind of potentially a limited liability in exposure the question is whether or not the just records interpretation of policy is a reasonable on in this case the district court's interpretation is this at war with the poll feeling which in the party's intent named insured here purchased a policy that would provide the next move coverage of one million dollars per current and subject to language in the policy limits of insurance tradition is to advise the reader that under no circumstances regards the number of claims to coverage that under no circumstances can be of the that that your your reading is the debt person then could could not recover more than one million dollars on three separate occurrences is that the way you're reading this now your honor the these two sections can be read in a way that makes  was a reasonable interpretation of the policy when the policy was written to provide a maximum of one million dollars in coverage was it reasonable to constant and then he was over the further and guidance that under no circumstances could be a single person recover more than a one million dollars in this case there was no attempt by other winners to reduce coverage under the policy on the a single person's injure a single person cannot recover more than than the total of our coverage for every single person entered cannot exceed each occurrence good afternoon your honour's may please the court i'm ari would op with us here on behalf of the pelleas and this is an unusual case in that i was unable to find this exact policy made subject to want another and where the limit was exactly the same so he has a construction case and in missouri we we have to give an ordinary person would attach to these terms and phrases and if there are a beauties d we have to resolve them in favor of the insured and then when we are making that incredible wait a nd you're not the insured are you so that's not quite true go ahead we under the policy occupancy insured and then the phrases have to be interpreted and then in the context of the policy as a whole not an isolation and in doing that we can do interpretations that leave certain provisions meaningless or without function and we also have to avoid interpretations that leave phrases ready trivial or super well here to the ordinary person confusion starts right from the beginning of this policy just for example at the declarations the liability coverage states it a combined single limit with a single per turns limit but for the uninsured coverage which is at issue here it states there is an each person limit and a per turns limit so right from the beginning the ordinary person sees a difference between what the policy says is a single combined limit which is d the liability section verses in each person each occurrence limit for uninsured so there is a distinction right off the bat at the beginning of the policy then when you get further into the policy and look at the sections themselves there is more differences that are better noteworthy in the about brown versus down on a ninety five missouri supreme court case that you did not reply to they have it both their opening and others and it worries about potentially and limited payment and here the way your interpret as i understand  if you hit the uninsured school bus of the church the church has forty dollars kids in there and they're uninsured and you hit them it's forty million dollars they owe me and for each kid a bus right perhaps if the because we have no case missouri or elsewhere that has this policy language and so everything else is just kind of loosely instructive however the richard case even though it's dealing with the set off instead of uninsured provisions it's the closest because it establishes the principle of if there is an express her vision that provides coverage and maximum amount of coverage that the question of the hypothetical that you gave that it's not unlimited for any reason other than the policy was not drafted well it is limited by the number of people that are injured orginally it does create that problem but as the drafters of the policy they could have so easily avoided that by simply doing a single combined limit like they've done elsewhere in the person limit and each occurrence limits here are conflicting and ambiguous in should be resolved in favor of coverage which in this case would be in favor of the insured share the occupancy insured which would or you know even even if the limits were different that's another way to avoid it if you had a higher per turn slam it than a per person limit you could cap all those damages d to three million dollars even a forty million dollars were injured and you would run into the problem that richie talks about or that some of the interpretation issues that we come into so easy ways to solve this is unfortunate rot or i guess it's fortunate for other owners here that there was only three people insured so now it doesn't you know it actually is working the other way around i think what it's trying to recognize is that if you don't read it this way you're reading out that each person limit which expressly states there will be up to a maximum of one million dollars per person even situations where multiple persons are injured and so how does the each occurrence limit mean that's the issue is there's no way to reconcile these two provisions that are conflicting yet they also purport to be mutually subordinate to each other and so when you have an irreconcilable conflict like that simply is now brown versus dunham does he implicitly kind of address this situation i you familiar with brown versus don i'm yes but because it says that if if if if there are one million for forty injured people and each occurrence is let's let's make it a little different just so you don't give away your case one point to me and that then that's prorated right that right it does say that however two there is a fundamental difference between this case and that brown case one we don't have the each person in each occurrence limits being made mutually subject to each other which is jury supreme court says this like they did in brown great versus down in one thousand nine hundred and five that that's been in every insurance policy in the case in the state it's in every insurance policy so i don't think your st reason necessarily holds water if brown vs down applies this case it and again i do think it's a significant distinguishing factor because in brown there was no irreconcilable ambiguity where  essentially had to choose between one provision or the other and under some of the claimants for some of the claimants there they did have to choose between one of the other right that's the point of the case kind of the difference being though it was one it was either a lower per person limit or a higher each occurrence of it and in the brown case they don't run afoul of the illusory coverage issue d in richie and so that's why i do think that that case is distinguishable in a doesn't suffer from the same problem that this policy suffers from specifically that issue is their policy contemplates multiple people being the person limit only applies when one person is entered and then if multiple people are injured only in the per turn sign it now under this policy it is clear that even when multiple people are injured the each person the limit still continues to provide up to one million dollars per person the most that auto owners will pay and under out owners interpretation there is no circumstance where multiple people are injured where any one of them could ever be paid the most that the policy says it will pay and that's why i think it runs afoul of the ridgy didge similar to the ritchie decision and why do you think it's case i still think were sort of in between a rock and a hard place we either have to read out the phrase subject to from section four b or read out for b in its entirety i think that's kind of where we're at and it seems to me the the more moderate approach is to just read out the subject to language employer be and you are as i was then in this case i felt a tendency to want to read something out as well but under missouri law we cannot do that unfortunately but under your reading i have to read out the entirety of four b and we're not reading it out but what we're doing is we're is it reasonable to to read out in its entirety deep each occurrence limit i don't think you read it out entirely you don't read it out entirely here you just apply the per person limit that's it because there's an irreconcilable conflict but isn't that doing it isn't that exactly reading out the per current saleman well your and every case where there was deemed to be a irreconcilable conflict between these two provisions and the per person limit was applied in lots of courts have done that they inevitably pick one provision over over the other the opposite would be even though the provision is ambiguous and conflicting to apply a per person limit which is contrary to missouri law which states whenever there is an irreconcilable conflict you you you apply the provision in resolve in favor of the insured and so between your two choices i don't think you can just read the subject to phrase out of either of those sections and instead the proper way is to end up with an irreconcilable conflict resulting in coverage in favor of the insured here the occupancy ensures what about a tiebreaker being and i know you just have thirty seconds that the anti stacking provisions missouri courts say if you put a clear anti stacking provision will enforce it but if you don't we're going to back so what do you think about saying the anti stacking provision that's later in forty that that's a tie breaker sure so my thoughts on that or i tried to stack in this case and we were and we had  be no limit is not increased and then it lists a couple factors which to an ordinary person it least suggest that for a must be interpreted as providing some additional evidence but i did lose on that argument overall and