author the author case of page seventeen of our brief that words used in a policy of insurance are to be interpreted according to the plain meeting which a layman would ordinarily attach to them that is the policy should be read as a layman would read it and not this might be analyzed by an attorney or an insurance expert in this case taking these drugs policy that's before us and looking at the renewal provision a lay person one before the court with whole life insurance expressed even an opinion of an insurance company as to what this policy and what these provisions matter we had three declarations that were submitted by represent to begin making those payments he was forgiven the obligation of making any further payments out of the under the premium payments is that correct that's correct and that's wait until the next position is that it as long as he was working thirty hours paying the premiums and furnishing proof of renewal at the time of income but he could have that he was now at his option he might we knew this policy for an additional ten years which would give him ten more years will only did he paid under protest but he'd pay it and the second would be if he gave that up and he also gave up any right to the inflation writer meaning that it was the the benefits would be at twelve six which is where they were at the time that he he became age sixty five that there would be no further increases so there was a change that took place today to sixty five after age sixty five but looking at the policy the beginning would have to reasonably assume in the absence of a language and said you disability new occupation that is going to continue to be covered in the in the occupation that he submitted this application for it's clearly stated invasive cardiologist would be the effect of the maximum benefit period provision well if the court does not believe it conflicts with the other provision i think it has to be annually it would be it would be speculative a hypothetical for the insurance company at the very beginning of this policy not to say that it would go beyond sixty five because we don't know if dr skull birth is going to work at sixty the court has to give credence to the real critics it has to mean something it doesn't mean a new policy you could go out and get a new policy without the conditions that homer phoenix imposed this case you look at the color of the inflation right or it talks about benefits that were preexisting as continuing after age sixty five you have to put yourself in the shoes of d think i think that that's true and i think that that the other thing that i wanted to mention was that we have to look at the the correspondence that dr spellberg received from the insurance company immediately following turning sixty five when he was applying for a new law in the most telling correspondence is from the first person the claims were asked the person that was lowest on the totem pole that wrote him a letter and specific provisions that if he became totally disabled as he did before age sixty three which was a situation that then the payments would stop at age sixty and that's very very clear from the policy and then the language goes on about the right to renu provided that after sixty five you're working thirty hours per wednesday and that rather you kind of wonder well what happened to the total disability with edges no way and when you became evil to work thirty hours a week or maybe the total disability could go away and you could be cured of that and you would be able to work and i think that was the theory perhaps a lark or all but that's a problem in this case terms are being filled and here they are written and the insurance companies have the opportunity to make this a clear and understandable policy didn't have it done so we wouldn't be here today doctors all over it wouldn't have these reasonable i would respectfully submit that this is about reasonable expectations referring the court's attention to the record specifically at page nine zero six which is dr silver application and application period waiting period and it would be a ninety day waiting period ok to them and so again in that specific application question dr spellberg had the opportunity to withstand the maximum which provision i would submit is crystal clear and he chose not to this is a man who unfortunately became totally disabled and pursuant to the provisions of the policy was painted full benefits for someone to the terms of through including age sixty five the renewal provision is a valuable provision because dr spellberg only asked for benefits to age sixty five what home through the administration of union central provide that following the exhaustion of the total disability benefits and individual insured has the opportunity if he is working thirty hours if he can demonstrate in time and if he pays the premium for that age he can renew the policy he or she can renew the policy specifically going to the question you posed your honor it was simply a mistake when the lower level claims person asked for income when they saw the portion that said earned income they thought it went back to proving it out when legal counsel union central got involved they immediately rectified it with and within a matter of weeks saying that was a mistake he simply has to show income to in fact demonstrate that he is working but other than that he only needed to pay the premium that was associated with someone his age why the renewal is so valuable is there is absolutely no evidence of insurability required to this day isn't title pursuant to the maximum benefit provision which still stays in full force and in fact because the disability arose post age sixty three he's entitled to two full years of benefits twenty four months as specified in the maximum benefit period so even though in his application he only asked for a maximum benefit period to age sixty five this renewal provision if the op support provides for further supplemental income up through including age seventy five i would respectfully request the court to not only review the policy as a whole which i believe the district court didn't pack do i also would respectfully request the court to look at the california supreme court cases certainly cited in the district court order specific specific lease use me and i you insurance bank of the west and invasive cities the court specifically said that any rule that rigidly presumed ambiguity from the absence of a definition would be illogical and unworkable when counsels there is that now what you mean central is doing is adding the word new disability it is simply explanation he is asking this court to negate to nullify to eliminate crystal clear provision in the policy providing for maximum benefits and coming up with i think is not reasonable in the first instance certainly not objectively reasonable and clearly beyond what the law is and what these clear policy provisions state and he questions the cour doesn't appear anywhere in the policy you have to look at the policy as dr spellberg we look at it and you don't see the word no you don't see further disability not what we do with the fact that under the your original policy there was a maximum benefit whether or not the application set age sixty five or lifetime the renewal provision remains in the policy and we have to deal with it he had benefits to seventy five what benefits