morning i'm bob stringer representing the balance in this matter there are two feature of the of this case which i think really stand out like a sore thumb i think particularly because allstate essentially ignored them in their brief there are not many facts in this case we stipulated to the record the insured is deceased has been deceased for a number of years the oh you say you call the insured isn't that the issue policy says when we use the word you it means the insured yes the judge your client i'm sorry so you're in the issue is what you qualify and i was simply using it as a short phrase for saying the gentleman who applied for insurance on behalf of his company is deceased so there's no testimony from him on what was said the coverage case didn't come along until several years after the death so it was really useless couldn't get anything out of the insurance agent so we have a stipulation on the record but one thing that is stipulated to it is the fact it isn't disputed and allstate has just chosen not even to discuss it in this brief is that this gentleman was given a quotation and that the insurance was applied for based on that quotation the quotation said that this insurance provides you with a form of bodily injury coverage if you are involved in an accident and where's the quotation in the excerpts are the quotation right and there are chapstick says on the side and then the quotation is in exhibit a and then in the lower right hand corner are the excerpts of record numbers starting with so you are arguing that you he has to interpret that as meaning you personally i don't know how else he understands that he being human a copy of the policy at that time is not he is not he is given the stipulation as he was given the quotation first based on that and his decision to go forward he was given the application materials which appear in exhibit b right behind their offer exhibit b actually has a couple options one of the options is not for this other kind of insurance that conspicuous in that it makes the coverage a loser and what do we know of what day he first sees the policy our own we have big issue one of the quality which is on the first page of it which  the date of death was october five two thousand and two policy had actually been renewed once yeah so so the time he really knows and he's right he had an opportunity to read the policy yes if that's what an insurer does and of course that's what my complaint is about the conspicuousness of the definition if one wanted to sort of wade through this policy but my first argument on the coverage really doesn't have anything to do with what it says in this policy except to the extent that this policy is in a way designed to clearly and conspicuously make him aware that something the patient would have led them to believe was not true these are these are independent theories but they do overlap to a certain extent the starting point i think of everything is he personally it's his company he's the sole owner he's the man who runs the company goes in and gets a quotation and he's given pieces of paper which represent the kind of coverage that is going to be issued and it says on the page that i indicated i believe i said once the key ones are rather maybe it's one twenty that th is provides uninsured motorist coverage to you if you are involved in an accident although you know i'm looking i'm going i'm on to it to exhibit a of six what we've got these various sort of little things and to review these documents a lot of raises a serious question as to whether or not this man was personally going to be covered for a bodily injury time it was a staff that is not the way that documents like limits a liability for injuries including death now his company cannot die this company cannot be personally injured it's saying you and i suppose if he's a lawyer he might start wondering about that but how is he supposed to think that this is the coverage they're offering to my company if my company dies or my company has a personal injury there isn't just no way that a lay person is going to leap to that conclusion and there is no definition these kinds of policies are sold with indorsements that provide coverage to the individual owner and this didn't have one of her take or and this didn't have a yes in the application and there's no indication that he went in indicated that he wanted personal coverage there's no his motorcycle if there is no indication that he asked for anything in particular except a quotation that is worth a listen if he asked for a quotation he has then given a quotation which says this covers judge white's decision in wednesday's and i didn't see any discussion at all of the quotation argument that you're making now was there any reason why he didn't discuss in his opinion are he says you step related to think that the policy itself is not ambiguous yes i did and that is not an argument that i'm making here yet so why did you make this quotation argument of judge white's and so why did i meet all three of these arguments he dismissed the reasonable expectation argument in one sentence which were suspensions i don't have it in front of me but i do cite it in my brief where he said that the reasonable expectations doctrine applies only in the case of the interpretation of ambiguous contrasts minus fifteen sixteen to seventy two yes and with all respect to judge white is a very fine judge that is dead wrong as i have gone to pains to establish in my brief there are cases in california going back to the fifty's the one nine hundred seventy five supreme court case in california smith versus westland says that even in the case of an ambiguous policy if there is a provision that is surprising to the insurer that he did not expect for it to be there and in this case the insurers the company but the the company what comes into that company's tummy to the brain of a man owned and run and so it's a question of whether it would be surprising to him acting on behalf of his company smith says that if there's something in there is surprising even if it is clear and ambiguous it has to be pointed out if it is not surprising what is the word that is surprising when a quotation says you are covered for injuries and the quotation is addressed to a little while it's addressed to the gentleman who is there standing there on behalf of his company that the question is how does the white person read it but what did he apply for it he apply for person for personal policy of some kind of to be apply for a business policy well he applies for business or policy but so he and he never asked for this ri get personal convert yes and there is no evidence he was told about the writer but it's more of the map when and when somebody comes in to apply for insurance they do not know everything of that policy is going to provide had been driving a company car and had been in an accident with that argument no only the company owner is covered by this policy no there because it says you know there is no there's a separate vision and there the this particular quotation is not addressed to that situation what this says what the quotation says is if you have an accident and you are cover the insurance policy then said that you have coverage which is consistent with the way that that was worded which is that there is this entity you who can have a bodily injury and who can be injured or who can be killed then the policy would have to say are what they claim that that rider would have said a writer that i have never seen it was or was never produced in the litigation your point is very clear let's hear from you know this i know you have your full opportunity all right thank you that's the bottom line here i think what i understand there's the coverage provided by allstate was only poor persons occupying a covered auto under the policy that's the type of u n you i am ambiguous and true under rigorous literal reading of the policy there's no coverage well how else do you read a policy but literally according to the plate in unambiguous terms this is an unambiguous policy the other side has stipulated to that the problem is if you start trying to rewrite the personal lines policy so he was covered when he was riding a bicycle but this is different it's a corporate policy it's a commercial policy presumably you sit down the agent agent gives you the quote and then you say i want i want to policy then there's an application submit it so a business person like this comes in and what is typically a business person they ask for a business person typically asked for coverage for his corporation i mean he can deliver so and then how is the quotation of the clouds the quotation the term the quotation is determined by who is asking for the insurance who owns the automobiles i presume c f s would have on the automobiles in this case they'd have the insurable interest on the automobiles and so he on behalf of his corporation asked for commercial auto insurance first corporation a quotation says what this is what it's going to cost then those terms cost you time and i think it's very clear that it's going on is that they're trying to basically change a commercial policy in their personal lives policy that's simply not the case the problem here if you try to rewrite the policy and say well no you should be mr marino where do you draw the line on that i mean clearly he'd been covered if he'd been in a covered auto there's no doubt about that but he wasn't covered although he was on a bicycle when you have to get uninsured or underinsured motors for and you kind of can't have it both ways if you're incorporate your corporation and that's just the way it goes that's how you do business but you know the point here is where do you draw the line with this if you say well mr marino is now you with that also include his wife without also include the employees part time employees full time employees where do you draw the line i think you draw the line of how the policy is written and the policy is very plain explicit in clear here i think the definition of you is quite a conspicuous it's on the first page of the policy after the declaration page is obviously it's on the first peach third sentence it says you or your throughout the throughout this policy it says specifically they could be more clear throughout this policy that includes a whole policy the words you when you are referred to the names in short showing all the declarations and when i test when i come in looking for insurance do i make some kind of an application when i fill out a document or some kind of an application that's the way that used always been i don't know if it's exactly and as it goes through it will stay liability coverage covers all times you are obligated to pay a bottle will use of your auto you clearly referring to the automobiles that are in the quotation the only owner of the automobile is the company i mean it s it seems to me terribly implausible if you read the quotation document as a whole that you would be all of a sudden the individual operating some other vehicle that is sam b for the insurance and bought the insurance policy in whose name that insurance policy is in fact eleven five eighty point two b says they didn't sure it shall be referred to the individual or the corporation shown on the declarations painted that's  the corporation shown on the declarations page back to suddenly logical and conspicuous the park at the very beginning where you was to find it also defines we our and us as all state if you're a reasonable person you look at the beginning of a contract to see how the parties are to find  seems to make sense to me and it says as used throughout you or your shall refer to the paul holding all the declarations to see what happens when you try to write legal documents in friendly language i mean we have a law school being screamed at don't use legal lees use friendly lan application here's the premium here's a receipt and that provides a temporary kind of conditional coverage in the courts to say hey look if you take somebody who's money they're going to think you have immediate coverage for a life or health insurance you simply need to point out to them the nature of this conditional receipt  it's temporary possibly terminable you have to qualify as a risk that's a wholly different circumstance we're talking about here position is very clear both here today in the briefs you have anything else you want to add i do not all right thank you but there it is the cars the cars belong to the company the application was raised by the company and what reasonable expectation well i will do something that lawyers love to do present a hypothetical quick question is let us suppose that everything is exactly the same as we have here but the piece of paper that this man is handed when he applies for the insurance in the quotation instead of saying you are covered for personal injury and death it says you personally how is a lay person going to understand the vast under the reasonable expectations doctrine even if the subsequent insurance policy is on ambiguous if a situation has been created by the insurer that mislead the insurer into not expecting that limitation then that is binding on the insurance company even though you can characterize it for advocacy purposes as rewriting the polity and that doctrine is not limited to pace which was not a conditional receipt case it was a liability case i started the california court of appeal case purdy case what's what's the key case you want to read before you make a final decision are i believe the key cases are co and purdie on the applicability of the reasonable expectation stockroom hoeing because it says that it disagrees with the california case when danny which rejected the reasonable expectations doctrine for a liability policy and the purty case p u r d i e which specifically holds that the doctrine is applicable to liability policy if that's the case in fact should not even trouble the present any cases in opposition to that they just gave them the back of the hand and said these are old cases and therefore there's no reason to pay attention to them the nine hundred ninety four i forget exactly how  pronounced it's in a risk the case not a state case but it was reached its result because it was persuaded by the wisdom of california law was not a conditional receipt case it was a case involving a group life insurance policy where the ninth circuit held a clear and explicit provision would not be enforced because it was not just sort of thing that would fall within the reasonable expectations of the insurer what's the full s insured not in favor of the insurance company if that can be done construed to be a promise of coverage for him personally that is the way it has to be read regardless of what the policy lines insurance payment only had a personal life insurance policy why did he need that if he had this well for one thing if he's on his motorcycle and he causes an accident he needs to be insured for the injuries that he's caused so there are clear reasons for having the two different policies so he understands the difference well he understands that he needs one for liability these policies are purchased principally for liability but when we get down to an issue like this the question is given the information that the insurance company gave him how was he supposed to understand what they said and when and we'll answer that for you all right i will i would like to point out one final point on this reasonable expectations doctrine and that is because i think of what was the and correct ruling below that it's a doctrine that only applies to the interpretation of ambiguous language in all stages argued that as well in my reply brief i started to california cases that say that that is not the case the graham versus scissors tale case of the california supreme court in  federal court is that arbitration agreements are construed in favor of arbitration not the other way so there's even a heavier burden in trying to avoid the precise language of a contract like that if it's oppressive or whatever reason nevertheless and graham versus the jail the california supreme court held that despite the clear and explicit language of an arbitration agreement it would not be enforced because it did not meet the reasonable expectations of the party and that is