things i understand that is correct how does the concept of excess insurance interact with well there are concerns that were issuing where it is understood that anything so you could try to take the interpretation yeah there is some limitation to slowing which it basically dealt with direct because that was what the case the facts of their case worth and so we don't believe that there is any insurance she was valid license in the trial court the court made a determination that in fact because there was a misrepresentation that bas i the point to catch right that the leading understood but that doesn't mean that once the insurance which they were doing anyhow without any justification that fact is that within a day or so or hours that somebody who was hired to do indicate probably by telephone some way to connect them and say that we have a problem with you sure it's your access that insurance is the night somebody driving from san diego to san francisco or stopping a hotel from a  be handled well the point is that it's a reasonable search was made and we believe that type of search could be done within hours because the investigating officer at the time of the accident within hours of the accident realized the issues that this court was concerned with in reality the facts were that the police were able to within minutes to ascertain whether or not that license was suspended or not they basically have access to a database they punch in the driver's license it comes back whether it's valid or not and that is going to the insurance companies have that same excessive belittle they should have that in place if they're going to deny coverage basically they have a duty to investigate  insurance it's all insurance you see no difference there is no you know you see no difference between a simple yes and primer no basically you just have an amount of insurance and if a major accident happened and you have more insurance you have the same duties and i mean basically that would be defeating the financial responsibility responsibility laws that are in place  i think what is clear that this is a case of a car rental transaction as opposed to a and same or auto insurance transaction which was being dealt with then and pereira with your two quite different animals and you have a pretty high premium don't you well certainly there are but no one would buy that type of insurance on an annual basis if they want to talk to have their own annual insurance they would buy it and get it at a much lower right want to wait around for half an hour or an hour or two hours when they check out whether your license is due that's correct your honor the transactions occur much more rapidly because the commercial reality as that's what the public wants that's us that carry our own access insurance perhaps that's you know certainly we can say well we're already adequately insured others may feel that they need additional insurance the rights that are charged of those rights that are approved by the various interest apartments in the states determination if you if you think about the commercial context and that's the big distinction here between what we're talking about a rare it's the kind of thing where this insurance can only be offered through the context of a car rental the primary transaction is the rental of the car there is insurance that's in so they know that there is an optional insurance it's not required this product is not required to rent the car but it's incidental to the transaction there's no one from philadelphia and then if they no insurance employ company employee that's sitting at the rental counter and you run your car and then you move over to the next counter you know and in determine where you want to surance as we all know from having done these transactions the rental counter insurance this is access insurance the only qualification that the person has to have in order to to opt to take this insurance is to be qualified by the rental car company to rent the car and what that entails as the rental car company determining whether they have a valid driver's license that's what qualifies that person to rent a car because we all know you know you have to have a driver's license to drive a car the only exceptions being certainly that if you have a the rider disabled person they can have somebody come with them to do the driving and they actually with a car but otherwise in order to rent a car we have to have a valid driver's license the state of california so in that respect in terms of qualifying both for the entering of the rental contract and to the take the optional excess insurance the qualification is being handled by the rental counter kompany there can a representative and they are acting on behalf of philadelphians is bound by what they do to that extent but your honor i think the key point is that the state of california for a long time has have statutes on the books that govern exactly this transaction and what the rental car companies are required to do to qualify a driver to enter that room on contract and the statutes say very clearly first of all and this is in section forty six zero six zero eight that the rental car company representative is required to look at the driver's license and then you know they want to verify this that the dates are valid that sort of thing and then when they when they have the person signed the middle and ring the thank you compare the signatures  sections fourteen six o four which is a companion statute specifically says there is no duty to go and check d m v records court about this you know i think i really don't think that that the pereira case is even close enough to the situation for there to be any that close the question as to whether or not it would apply here and you know i think that that is that fifteen thousand per person thirty thousand harassed with an average minimum coverage that all of us have to have if we drive a vehicle in california on the road but there's no requirement under that code under the financial responsibility law for anyone to have access and sure that's so if you look at the broader public policy analysis and vera what the court was doing there is saying look the f our financial responsibility law creates the duty to the public because that stash will be required insurance and she is not only for the benefit of the insured but the rest of the traveling members of the public to protect everyone on the road and we don't have any  that the same sign an ok in california has ever applied this to a policy above that and i think the key thing i'm not sure i'm not sure whether they and it takes sixty to eighty one the court said after the insured person has obtained a judgment against the insured therefore he might compel the insurer to pay the judgment to the extent of eight the deals with with exactly what we're talking about what the rental car companies required to do to qualify renter in terms of examination driver's license was amended and of course the rare event all of those for a long time and a connection with the rental business at the risk of the car that's true but but but but certainly it is exactly the same concept and everybody is aware of a different view in the you know when you look at it in the context of insurance either either way the point is that judgement noonan made and previous argument i think is is right quite valid you're talking about a transaction that occurs and sometimes is fully performed and one day you know you fly and you're in a car you go to your business you come back in the afternoon you turn the car and you go on a plane you fly home we're talking soup to nuts full performance of the contract and one day the type of pricing we're talking about is being able to go you know and find out in several days just because the police department can get information we all know doesn't mean that each of us as private citizens or private businesses can get that same question because they there are ways that they can get it in california although the privacy considerations are or a real problem but that it means they states do so here we've got an arizona driver's license you know what if it was from nevada what if it was from utah the fact the matter is that for a lot of things that we do in life we have to rely upon people being honest in transactions and the overwhelming majority of people that walk up to rental counters are honest when they hand their driver's license and aren't knowingly presenting a suspended or invalid driver's license  i think quite correctly made the factual finding after hearing all the evidence that that he knew that that that that driver's license was invalid when he handed it to rent that car or if he didn't know it for sure he had no reasonable basis based on his long experience with suspended driver's licenses to be able to make the representation that was valid in light of the fact that he had just over a number of months peri's been released missing repeated court dates a suspension issue so yes that was a situation where he testified he didn't know fact the matter is i think the evidence proved otherwise and judge was so ruled and so so we've got a situation that is not the everyday thing that occurs matter of fact it's pretty rare i have the pleasure of representing rental car companies and their insurers all across the country and have done so since the early eighty's sure i've seen a couple of cases around the country where there'd been people present false driver's licenses but you'd be surprised they didn't happen as often as you would think and so we're not talking about something that happens repeatedly day after day where we have somebody that just basically took advantage of the system and came in and intentionally you know rented a car based on a driver's license that he knew wasn't wasn't valid they knew he had no right to be driving particular instance the the insurance policy is a master policy under which budget is the owner of the policy but not an insurer but your budget has the right to enroll renters that opt to take th the qualification as a renter and the ability to enroll them is the same act the same scrutiny that the rental car company goes and goes through when you present your driver's license at at first i heard of that as i said i don't represent budget i represent several other rental car companies but i don't represent budget so i am sorry i don't know the answer to that question i'm not sure that we got the right parties hanging around here so if that sounds like a real interesting losses just one that situation and that is i'm sure you all will from reading the case will recall that there was a mention of the reasonable expectations doctrine in that case and what they were talking about there was because of the fact that the financial responsibility limits mandatory or compulsory limits are deemed to be insurance that's both for the benefit of the insured and the public that the public then has a reasonable expectation that each of the other drivers on the roadway will have at least you know that minimum compulsory insurance when i drive a vehicle well in this particular case on this particular appeal all of the appellant's in the other vehicles were in the other vehicles that were involved in the accident not the rental car none of them were part of the rental car transaction they fall into that category that the for not national responsibility law creates as as third parties who have reasonable expectations that others will comply with the financial responsibility compulsory insurance laws and so there are reasonable expectation of these appellants is limited to the financial responsibility laws because we know that there is no requirement for any of us to have more than that minimum level insurance in order to operate a vehicle so they have no reasonable expectation that for all those reasons i believe respectfully that the court should affirm the trial court and there's any further questions i'd be happy to address them i don't really feel thank you thank you very much that insurance will not apply in this situation he's trying to indicate that this was an unsafe driver the point you have a tribe's licenses the expectation that the person is the state driver brooke lost his licen didn't appear at a court proceeding because he didn't show proof of insurance when his license was issued that doesn't mean he was a bad driver who had been mistreated reason he lost his license so therefore he didn't so they can't lead later on if they choose not to investigate that they're somehow victimized in the situation they choose to they choose the procedure in which they want their agents to follow that's want the court did get the issue of the renting vs the insuring which was the next day and our final case for this morning is ala