in this case the insurance carrier or would you and the district court fail and that there was an automatic terminations of policy benefits as soon as insurance insurance premiums had not been paid there was never a finding by the district court that the requirement of minor notice and thirty days advance notice of lapse had been complied with in fact to this record express we found that under california law all the absence of current premiums was enough to automatically terminat the policy the question is a right the state of code is that good long and in fact opposing counsel in american general consumer good the rule that in general with which supported a claim that with respect to life insurance california is a strict construction state in the state of coke the calif record of a pirep interpreted the rocker vs occidental life insurance case which was a cow through supreme court case and in that case an employee had a valuable conversion right upon the termination  his employment to continue without having to take the health insurance medical that he never received notice that he was going to lose that right and in fact the carrier never court of appeal in ca relied on section fifteen sixteen fifty five of the super code provides that stipulations which are necessary arms right in respect to matters concerning which the conduct manifest so what's your argument is that the simple failure to pay premiums standing alone is not enough that is absolutely correct and there is additional money required is  set up a requirement that other people beat notified and did that happen here no in fact what happened here is michael duffy both original service policy as an early line policy and he tore through what was your hearts and it never was dispute but in addition to a notification you would also come to me and that this is what you are in the past and those representations are not binding upon the carrier this was an early understanding between the notice to the h yes i have a different question if i understand the record correctly we're going knew that both policy number one and policy number two had my ups and in fact he had received an application to try to reinstate policy number two because it had lapsed and he chose not to do it but it doesn't it's it just appeared to me that he had house that they were going to interned live in for a while and then stop it was i gather when you took and district court i think that is the position that the notice was sent to the wrong address correct that was the position you know one of the position maybe you can do that on rebuttal on the one stall your time here try for insurance take a medical exam and if in fact you passed the medical exam will get you coverage so he learned about the last but he learned about it a toy but he no longer was able to maintain the insurance under his original medical drafts why is it wrong for the insurance company to send notices to us because he maintained his driver's license and you need to change all of his bank and official notifications at the look dr address what happened was  month or so later to please the court in time for its given represent american general life insurance company i think the court has already honed in on the key issues in the case that the facts are under speeded and if the facts show that gordon johans there is a a statutory issue here there is not the moderate case from the ninth circuit which was followed the coke case and it discussed it said in the context of life insurance that there is not  context of the owner of a life insurance policy there is not any sort of similar statutory issues relating to notice the reasoning there is now after the recent statutory nachman step talked about what requirements the life insurance company has to do in terms of who has to get noticed there were concerns the ones that were identified council was discussing the fact of agents or other people and cope was dealing with that about the sure and he was the only one to get notice so in model rosie and the owner got the notice but not one of the parties got the notice and not the other it was a husband and wife and they separated and then the policy lapse and so the court found that there was no specific statute that required notice to anyone else other than in the past so in this case because the statutes that have been enacted since by california that allowed somebody to designate in writing someone else to get notice there were discussions about whether mr coffey bono had the right under course of conduct and so forth none of that was played or there was no evidence of that none of those things are before the court were before the court none of them have been raised on appeal but in terms of the new statute that is there it specifically says that if you tell the insurance company someone else has to get notice they may do so in this case the question is was the person entitled to notice he was the only person and title to notice the facts are undisputed that he received notice and what happened but my son i  we believe that given the applicable standard that there is no evidence that they were not received gordon's riots in his past the way he did not testify the court specifically identified the reinstatement application which was a large home he took out all the money from his two life insurance policies to help fill this hole that was a difficult time economy two thousand and eight he was sick he asked for all the money he took it all out he never paid another premium and it was all sent to that same that they used they sent the notice of pending termination that was the thirty day advance notice that the policy describes the earlier notice the premium reminder notice that is something that comes out periodically and it was sent out on policy to every month for seven hundred fifty dollars and they paid it every month until june of two thousand and eight policy number one in the year two thousand they specifically requested that notices not be sent because the policy the self  played in the complaint it was never raised at any time until the summary judgment motion they suggested that perhaps that section five hundred was violated as the district court found it was not implicated because it was the insurer who  requested notices not to be sent because the policy was paying for itself once he took out all the money it didn't pay for itself and they sent him the notice of pending terminations those notices were sent and then after the policy terminated when in january of  nine the other in march that he they sent him a notice that indicated the policies lapsed if you'd like to reinstate it please contact us then so he got those because in june of two thousand and ten over a year later he called the insurance company by then he was sick he was not sick when he took all the money out started to use it on his house because if he was very sick he would not have done it he was not sick and he then he inquired about reinstatement and at that the the other issue was that the there was never a claim submitted there was a letter and supposedly there was a phone call from mr duffy bow the insurance company wrote back and said you're not the right person if  simply the contract in the court appointed to the estate of coke i wanted to briefly address that issue that case was very limited and it dealt with the issue of who was supposed to get notice and in that case the assignee the contract itself had a very given that there was a statute that suggests that that was how it was going to be in the future this particular policy didn't apply to that one because it was the statute was prospecting the application only so they said it makes more sense we looked at the the that says strict construction applies in this context the reason is because one is a first party coverage and the others are third party coverage as the other cases dealt with matters of live birth insurance where they were going to be cancelled for some reason contract each side has a set of obligations and the main obligation of the insured is to pay the premiums to keep the policy in force we cited a case from long ago that's never been overruled that says that's the principle obligation and that the result they didn't need to address it in that case but there are no cases cited that suggest anything to the effect as proposed by plaintiff here that the the policy would not be invalidated if the the analysis is dead the any failure by the insurance company excuse some obligation to pay a premium by the plane that's the proper framework where the excuse for some reason they didn't  that in their complaint they never raised it alone they never brought it to this court's attention that's the proper question is was there some of susana parklands to pay premium the answer was no they didn't played it and there wasn't any but the one that they have suggested as well  this is not that case so the that didn't happen in this instance the insurance company took what it was supposed to do under the contract and the policy lapse then and that's unfortunate they didn't give them notice that they were required to give additionally there was another notice that was required for both piracies insurance help section five hundred seven if there has been a pattern of se