a whole to give meaning to every part of the insurance policy context in this case is very important because on tax insurance policy they often or parade or a reader to another part of the policy for definitions explanations or limitations in this case what we have is  definition as contained in the guy poesy where it states under under the definition of his church an individual named in the declaration there is nothing more within the guy other than referring back to the declaration or that phrase and when you look back at the declarations page there are two individuals named on the declaration page ready there is the named insured and then there's  additional driver just to show there is nothing in the geico policy that defines what is intended by additional driver there is no definition for additional driver and in fact right so then we don't we don't go to contract construction rules reapplied plain language correct ok so what you're arguing is what happened to louis where the district court decided as they did not include the language in the statute because in the statute the term insured is made insured and i had had a coke use that term statutory definition if the the language in the statute or if i'd be insured as a need insured and even even without the further definition which is within the statute of named insured they didn't even use the definition in the statute for the insured because the definition in the statute for need assured it is an individual or organization named in the polic their definition doesn't make any sense because the only individual that would be named a decoration would be the official driver would not be insured if the name in the show was an organization th same coverage section in the same subsection definitions where they actually used the term named as sure and we all know who we're talking about when that used the term named insured yet they don't use it in the definition yours that implies that geico itself was making a distinction because they use the term named insured in one part but they don't use it in the definition of insured so if you're the divorced at church and you look at you  the problem with that is when you separate that phrase from the term named insured then it has multiple different meanings isolated by itself for example i'll give you a you got hypothetical if if in the definitions of uninsured motorist coverage they said rich was it only decoration and that would be the definition of it and you look at the declaration age and you see oh there's or her spouse's if they had said insured means the name the named insured in the declarations and his or her and if you look at it in context of almost all that phrase does will named in the in the declaration his or her spouse it directs you back to the decoration that's why the context is important and when you look at happened while she was riding a bicycle but you don't drive a bicycle you ride a bicycle in your client was not driving could a reasonable person expects coverage under the situation yes and the real reason a reasonable  than the named insured his or her spouse and resident relatives unless that other person is operating the driving a vehicle as just sorry quite an out at the time of the accident getting used to understated points together i believe the question the narrow question for the court becomes yes and that is whether or not guy goes all of the language either tracks or still uses a defined term named insurers and all the guy has done is to expand that defined term named insured with the legislature's own definition of what it means with the so the insurance or is it going to could you could you do me a favor that if you take the statute and go to the policy we're always quoting the definition of insured it reads the it insured means a the individual named in the declarations and his or her spouse so how does that track how does that mere here includes if a name does is insure is an individual which of course is the case that we're dealing with here insured means the named insured and the spouse of the named insure deserves to be stressed here is this i think it would be inappropriate to write a decision that puts upon the insurance company the onus of clarify language writing a better or clearer turn of phrase than the legislature provided to the insurance company i believe this for a couple of reasons so what if we just write an opinion that says the insurance company has to statutory language merely expanding the defined term named insured with the legislature's own definition of that term a definition that in many circumstances may be clearer lavery or many situations like this case where the legislatures choice of definition creates interpretive job on just it wouldn't exist in other situations when those challenges arise the answer is to go and our if a court puts the onus on insurance company of clarifying french for example doing pearson adding language intended to clarify and expand said that geico quote merely extended the definition and quote and that actually means that they did not track the statute being ended it and that it would be consistent with  you made the make any sense to lay laypersons that's why they don't use it except for the fact that they do use it and we know even in this think coverage section under definitions for underage should motors vehicle and uninsured motors vehicle they use the phrase any motor vehicle owner operated by the named insured so they do make that distinction and they do rely upon mr brooks argued what what would be a reasonable interpretation you have in this case two different district courts reaching different conclusions reading the same policy language in remarkably the same underlying factual scenario one involved a bicyclist one of all the pedestrian and a reasonable expectation that that implies that there's two reasonable interpretations and the law in california is if there is a reasonable interpretation more than one you would interpret it favor of the party they did not drop the contract