a summary judgment option so i need to tell you where there are either material issues of disputed facts or simply where there are undisputed facts and i believe the is to me that it's a disputed issue a fact whether the check or draft or whether the players bank withdrawal receipt that  false pretenses that's not true well there are several places to look to see what forgery actually means one of those places is not policy because they didn't define it in the policy had a signature of the actual person that signed but he didn't have authority and the court found it was forgery under forgery coverage in the security bank case the b signed over invoices truing form with his true signature but the court found that they were forgeries because the transactions didn't really occur and the use of those to induce the bank to loan money will fail within the forgery coverage i think you have to really focus on the insurance xpect reasonable expectations of coverage under the policy  there's an argument to be made that this falls within the penal code section of forgery but we're not talking about a criminal case here we're talking about what would invoke coverage and why this should be considered forgery under the insurance policy in light of the reasonable expectations of the insured so in that context and with those cases as a backdrop i think the players bank withdrawal receipt was forged and that probably out of conceit is a legal issue to be addressed but the other issues one of the forgery coverage are are simply whether the shift within the definition of currency  so as to be money and and there again i we've got an argument i think the facts are essentially undisputed i know how you can use these chips that they're we deem a bull that they can be used as a medium of exchange within the bicycle scene or any other casino and in southern california that they  are not exclusive that they can you can use cash or you can use the jepps so and all those sensors they're not like tokens and therefore they qualify as money so what we have under the forgery coverage american has the burden of bringing this case within the exclusion and i suppose you know it was submitted i think powerful evidence that the act inducing it to part with this money was the honest but mistaken act of bank of america and confirming that the check it cleared there was a whole place on this tra thief comes in i mean if you're induced to leave your property available by some honest representation about how safe it's going to be and a thief comes in and steals that you're induced to part with the property by something other than theft but the theft occurs i mean there's no argument that that the money was stolen but it wouldn't have been stolen if you weren't induced to give it up by something way over here from a third next if you look at the exclusion there are two requirements that have to be met one is voluntary parting and the other is it has to be induced by this honest act now there is no reason since that is already dishonest there was no reason for the exclusion to repeat the need for a dishonest act in last the exclusion in the in the policy intent acknowledges the possibility that there can be a voluntary  momentary parting induced by a non dishonest actor i'm going for example you give your credit card in a restaurant to to pay for something and while it's there someone steals the number and steals your money well there's a theft but it's been induced by your the simple representation you need to pay for your for your meal when you give up your credit card those kinds of examples now on the other issues fraud of the agent there are material facts in dispute relating to great americans knowledge of the falsity of what was represented to induce purchase of this policy despite the disclaimer yes despite the disclaimer because the disclaimer of the well because the policy if you don't get the policy until after you've bought it so this is a matter of distinguishing between misrepresentation inducing the acquisition of the policy and the contract i can see policy you don't have a license to misrepresent what's going to be in the policy by simply saying read the policy when you get it because then it's too late you've already relied on what you're told in advance its goal is in that policy and  this case we could think about the fact that many casino customers have lives of credit based on the casinos argument if somebody comes in the casino signs a promise to pay five thousand dollars whatever ten thousand dollars also been caused by something else is really beside the point if an exclusion and health care law the exclusion excludes a loss covered by the policy the fact that some other  the summary arrives and you rely on the whatever's in that summary even though it says in big capital letters probably hear and read letters you can't rely on this summary you have to read the policy but they don't have a policy  theoretically the policy is still going to be delivered and they'll look at it after they decide to buy so why what's wrong with the appellant's argument that that disclaimer is it is provision you would they would have to demonstrate that they could have purchased this this type of coverage elsewhere and there's no evidence that they could of that they have done it now that any such coverage exists that would give them coverage for i don't think we do one more point on the forgery again in the context of the insurance policy and the record shows that great americans claim representative actually procured industry literature that established that there are policy forms which define forgery to require a false signature on a document this policy form didn't and that evidence is i believe any chance to provide broader coverage so that you're not going to require the insured to adhere to with a narrow distinction to be drawn and that's why the exclusion allows for the possibility that this voluntary party can be either through the dishonest back of the perpetrator or through an honest act in this case and in most cases i would think of some third party at worst we're dealing with a concrete cost situation and then you have to get into the efficient proximate cause cases and i would argue that what's kept the wheels in motion for this last is the bank of america telling the bicycle casino the check it cleared causing a bicycle causing him to lift the hold that was protecting it from suffering this l s responding your question your honor the broker it well the person entity making the representation this is on the misrepresentation claim it was actually an appointed agent of great american so the representation of that agent is the representation of great american the argument that the great american has advanced as there is no evidence of intent to induce reliance the evidence is right in the circumstances your honor i i don't see if you're  trying to sell an insurance policy in your proffering a summary of its terms to the prospective buyer then you're intending to induce reliance on that statement if i there's no other purpose for which you could be proffering that summ is legally great americans representation to the bicycle casino ok is there any i mean so you're just saying the simple fact that gallagher was there appointed agent means that anything that gallagher did they necessarily knew there anybody gallagher new vid it was wrong there's nothing in the record that i can point you to because we never got the statement but you're saying it's not necessary right i don't believe it's legally necessary as long as gallagher is