We substit ute Susan Co m b s , i n her of ficial c apac ity , as succ essor to Carole Kee ton 1 Stray horn, Comptroller of Public Acc ounts of the State of Te x as. SeeTex. R. App. P . 7.2. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 446 -CV

Sus an Com bs, Com ptroller of P ubl ic Acc ounts of the State of T exas, and Gre g Abbott, Attor ney Ge neral of the State of Texas , Appellan ts
v. Met ropolitan Li fe Ins urance Com pany, Northw este rn Mutual Lif e Insurance Com pany, M as sa c huse tt s M ut ualLife Ins ur anc e Co m pany , a nd t he M ut ualLife Ins ur anc e Co m pany of New York , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-90- 484, 745 , HO NORAB LE GISELA D. TRIANA-DO Y AL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N The Comptroller of Public Ac counts of the State of Texas and the A ttorney Gene ral of the State of T exas (collectively , “the Com ptroller”) , in their offic ial capa cities, appe al from the trial court’ s order

g ranting sum mary

judgme nt in favor of

appellee s Metropolitan L ife Insuranc e Com p an y , N o rthw e s te r

nM u tu a l L if

e I n s u r an c e Co mp an y , M a s s a c h u s e tt s M u tu a l L if e I n s u r ance Company , and the Mutual L ife I nsuranc e Company of Ne w York ( collectively , “the Insurer s”). The 1 I nsurer s broug ht a tax-protest suit seeking a re fund of c erta in insurance premium and maintena nce tax es paid to the State of Te x as fr om 1989 throug h 2003. Both pa rties filed motions for
summa ry jud g me nt, and

the tr ia l c ourt

g ra nte d th e I ns ur e rs ’ m oti on , o rd e ri ngthe Com ptr oll e r t oTh e tr ia l c ou rt de nie d th e I ns ur e rs ’ r e qu e st f or a tto rn e y s’ fe e s. 2 The insura

nce pr emium and maintenanc e taxes have been codified in chapter s 222 and 257, 3 respe ctively , of the insura nce c ode. See Tex. I ns. Code Ann. §§ 222.001-.008, 257.001-.004 (West 2009). For

mer articles 4.11 and 4.17 we re e ffe ctive at a ll tim es re levant to the pre sent dispute, and we re not amended in any manner bear ing on our

analy sis. The Insurer s also sold a s m al ler number of hea lth and annuity

insurance policies. The 4 parties ag ree that these police s are substantively identical to the life insura nce policie s for purpose s of the pre sent ca se. 2 issue a re fund for

the taxes in question. We reve rs e t h e t ri al court’s judgment a nd rende r 2 summary judgme nt in favor of

the Comptroller.
BACK GR OUND The pre sent dispute is gove rned by former articles 4.11 and 4.17 of the Te x as I nsuranc e Code. See Act of July 3, 1984, 68th L eg ., 2d C.S., ch. 31, art. 4, § 1, 1984 Tex. Gen. L aws 215, 216, repeale d by Act of May 20, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1274, § 26(a)( 1), 2003 Tex. Gen. L aws 3611, 4138 (her einaf ter cited as Former Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. 4.11); Act of Ma y 15, 1987, 70th L eg ., R.S., ch. 249, § 5, 1987 Tex . Gen. L aws 1558, 1561, repeale d by Act of Ma y 20, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1274, § 26(a) (1), 2003 Tex. Gen. L aws 3611, 4138 (her einaf ter cited as F ormer Tex. I ns. Code Ann. ar

t. 4.17). 3 F ro m 19 89 to 200 3, the I ns ur e rs pa id ins ur anc e pr e mium and ma int e na nc e ta xes i n
c onne c tio n w iththe sa le of lif e ins ur anc e po lic ie s. For mer a rt i cl e 4
. 1 1 of the insura

nce c ode 4 imposed a pre mium tax on car riers r ece iving pr emiums from ce rtain ty pes of insura

nce, inc luding l i fe i n s u ra n ce. See F o r

me r T e x. I n s . Co d e A n n . art. 4
. 1 1
. Sp e c if ic a ll y , th e p r e mi u m t a x w as imposed on: the total g ross amount of all premiums, membership fees, assessments, dues, and any other considera

tions for such insurance rec eived during the taxable yea r . . . , b ut3

deductingreturne d premiums, any dividends applied to pur chase paid-up a dditions to insurance , or to shorten the e ndowment of pre mium pay ment period, a

nd excluding those pre miums receive d from insuranc e car riers for reinsura

nce and ther e shall be no deduc tion for pre miums paid for reinsura nce. Id. Simi la

rl y , f or me r a rt ic le 4. 17 imp os e d an annua l ma int e na nc e ta x on “ the c or

re c tly
re po rt e d g ro ss p re miums o f l if e , h e a lth , a

nd a c c ide nt i ns uran ce co ve ra g e s, and the g ro ss considerations for annuity and endowment contra cts collecte d by all authorized insurers writing life , health, and a ccide nt insurance , annuity , or endow ment contra cts in this S tate.” Id. art. 4.17.

The Insurer s provided li fe insurance policies under f orm contra cts, which re quired t h e p o l i c y h o l d e rt o p ay a

f i x e d an nu a l p r e m i u mi no r d e r t o m a i n t a i nt h e f

u l l b e n e f i to f t h e p o l i c y. The Insurer s set these a

nnual pre miums hi g her tha n they anticipated w ould be ne cessa ry to pay claims and other

expenses and mee t reser

ve re quirements, so that the company could expect to be le ft wi th a surp lus a t th e e nd

of e a c h y e ar. The c on tr a c ts p ro vid e d th a t a po rt ion of thi s d ivi sib le surplus would be paid a s dividends to the p o l i cy holders on the policy

anniver sary

date. Ea ch policy holder c ould elect to re ceive these div i dends in one of the following way s: (1) re ceiving p aym e n ti nc a s h ; ( 2 ) u s i n g t h e d i v i d e n d s t o p u r c h a s e a d d i t i o n a l i n s u r an c e a s p arto f t h e s a m e p o l i c y,
re fe rr e d to a s “ pa id- up a dd iti on s to ins ur anc e”; (3) allowi ngthe div ide nd s to a c c umu late wi th interest; or (4) apply ing the dividends to rene wal premium pay ments. The present appeal involves the ta xab le natur e of

tho se div ide nd s tha t we re a pp lie d to r e ne wa l pr e mium pa y me nts a t th e re qu e st of the policy

holder. The Comptroller has c o n s iste ntly taken the position that dividends applied to re newa l premium pay

ments are taxable under for mer articles 4.11 and 4.17 as gross pre miums receive d or4

collecte d. See id. art. 4.11 (imposing pr emium tax on “total gro s s am o u n t o f all pre miums . . .

rece ived duri ngthe ta xab le y e ar” ) (e mph a sis a dd e d) ; id. art. 4.17 (imposing maintenanc e tax on “the
corr ectly repor

ted gross premiums . . . collecte d by all authorized insurers” ) (empha sis a dded). The I nsurer s, on the other hand, asse rt that such dividends ar e not re ceive d or collec ted by the company and ther efor e ar e not subject to tax. The I nsurer s paid premium and maintena nce tax es on dividends applied to renewa l premium pay ments under protest from 1989 to 2003, ultimately filing the prese nt suit to seek a ref

und for the amounts paid, a total of $10,817,043.00, plus interest. B oth parties filed motions for summary

jud gm en t , an d the trial cour t gr anted the I

nsurer s’ motion, orderingthe Comptroller to issue a ref und of the taxes paid under protest. This appea l followed.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Summary judgme nt s ar e re viewed de novo. Va le nc e Op e ra tin g Co . v . D or se tt , 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). W hen, as he re, both pa rties move for

summary judgme nt on the same issue, a

nd the trial cour

t gr ants one motion and denie s the other, the a ppellate c ourt consider s the summary -judg ment evidenc e pre sented by both sides, determines a ll questions p re s en t ed , and if the re vie wi ngc ourt

fi nd s t hat the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d, re nd e rs the jud g me nt t he tr ia l c ourt

sh ou ld have r ender ed. Id.

The que stion of whether

the Insurer s are entitled to a ref und of g ross premiums and maintenanc e taxes turns solely on an issue of statutory construction. Statutory

construction is a leg al question that we revie w de novo. State v. Shumak e , 199 S.W .3d 279, 284 (Tex. 2006). In resolving
an i s s u e o f s t at u t o ry

co n s t ru ct i o n , we ar e r eq u i re d , fi rs t an d fo re m o s t , t o fo l l o w t h e p l ai nl an gu age of the statute. Gene ral Motors Corp. v. Bray , 243 S.W .3d 678, 685 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007,5

no pet.). “ I f a statute is c lear and unambiguous, it should be given i t s commonly understood meaning without resor

t to extrinsi c aids of statutory construction.” Id. We r ead e very word, phra se, and expression in a statute as if it we re de liberate ly chosen, a nd presume that words excluded from t h e s t a tu t e ar e d o n e s o p u r p o s e f u l l y. Gabl es Rea lt

y Ltd. P’ sh ip v . Trav is C

e nt. Ap prais al D ist
. , 81 S.W .3d 869, 873 (Tex. App.—Austin 20 0 2 , p et. denied). “Construction of a statute by

the administrative ag ency

char g ed with its enforc ement is entitled to serious consider ation, so long a s the construc ti o n i s rea sonable a nd does not contra dict the plain languag e of the statute.” Tarrant Ap prais al D ist . v . M

oo re , 845 S.W .2d 820, 823 (Tex. 1993). Statutes imposi ng a tax must be strictly construed a g ainst the taxi ng authority and liberally construed in f

avor of the taxpay er, while statutory exemptions and deduc tions from tax ation
are considere d “matter s of leg islative ‘g race,’” and ar e strictly construed a g ainst the taxpay er. Upjohn Co. v. Rylander , 38 S.W .3d 600, 606 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied). I n the pre sent
c a se , the Com

ptr oll e r a rgue s th a t th e statut e sh ou ld b e c on str ue d s tr ic tly

a g a ins t th e I ns ur e rs be c a

us e they are seekingto invoke a deduc tion from the tax base. The I nsurer s, on the other ha nd, asser t that they are not seekinga deduc tion because the dividends at issue in this suit should never have be en included in the tax base i n the first place and therefor e no deduction is nece ssary . Be cause we a g ree with the Comptroller’s position that the premiums at issue must be included in the tax base and ar e there fore taxable absent a st atutory provision authorizing a de duction or exemption, we will construe the statute strictly

ag ainst the Insurer s. See id.

DI SCU SSIO N I n a sin g le iss ue on

a pp e a l, t he Com ptr oll e r a rgue s t hat th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in interpre ting f

ormer a rticles 4.11 and 4.17 of the insurance code to c onclude that the I nsurer s were6

entitled to a re fund of premium and maintenanc e taxes pa id on dividends applied to re duce r enew al premium pay

ments. Acc ording to the C omptroller, these dividends we re r ece ived as pre miums and th e r e f o r e mu s t b e in c lu d e d in th e tax base. See Fo rmer T ex. I ns. Code Ann. ar t. 4.11 (imposing premium tax on “total gross a mount of all premiums . . . rece ived during the t axable y ear ”) (empha sis added). The I nsurer s argue that the dividends we re never “re ceive d” by

the Insurer s beca use t hey wer e held by the company in surplus before they

wer e dec lare d, and re mained with the compan y a f te r th e y w e r e d e c la

r e d an d a p p li e d to th e r e n e w a l p r e mi u m a mo u n ts d u e . T h e p arties ag ree that if the dividends applied to re duce pr emiums were “re ceive d” under f ormer a rticle 4.11, they wer e also “ collecte d” under former article 4.17. See id. art. 4.17 (imposing maintenanc e tax on “the c orre ctly

repor ted g ross premiums . . . collecte d by all authorized insurers” ) (e mphasis added)
. As a re su lt, we wi ll fo c us our an a ly sis on wh e the r d ivi de nd s a pp lie d to re ne wa l pr e mium pa y me nts
are premiums “re ceive d” under former article 4.11. B e c a us e thi s a pp e a l turn s so le ly

on an is su e of

statut or y c on str uc tio n, “ we loo k f

ir st and for emost to the words of the statute.” Le x ing ton In s. Co. v . S

tra y ho rn , 209 S.W .3d 83, 85 (Tex. 2006). For

mer a rticle 4.17 provide d, in releva nt part, for

a tax on “the total g ross amount of all premiums . . . rec eived dur ing the taxable y ear . . . , but deductingreturne d premiums, any divi d e n d s a

p p li e d to p u r c h a s e p a id

- u p a d d it io n s to in s u r an c e , o r to s h o rte n th e e n d o w ment or pr e mium pa

y me nt p e ri od .” F or

me r T e x. I ns . Cod e Ann. art . 4 .1 7. As the Com ptr oll e r p oin ts o ut, the leg islature specific ally included a deduction for dividends used to purcha se additional insuranc e. See id. Be cause we a ssume that ever y word in a statute has m ea n i ng , we must assume that the le g isl a tur e int e nd e d s uc h d ivi de nd s to be c on sid e re d “ re c e ive d” by an ins ur e r, or e lse the re wo uld be no need for statutory lang uag e allowing them to be deducte d from the tax base. Dividends use d7

to purcha se additional insuranc e, li k e d i v i dends applied to re newa l premium pay ments, are essentially

paper transac tions in which the dividend is not phy sically returne d to the policy

holder a nd no money exchang es hands be tween the parties. Whil e the I nsurer s contend that dividends applied to r e ne wa l pr e mium pa

y me nts are no t “ re c e ive d” be c a us e thes e pa

y me nts are ha

nd le d inte rn a lly wi tho ut ph y sic a lly tr ans fe rr ing the div ide nd s to the po lic y ho lde r, div ide nd s us e d to p urch ase
a dd iti on a l in sura

nc e are pr oc e sse d in

the same wa

y . Th e re fo re , the fa c t th a t th e le g isl a tur e c ho se to treat dividends applied to the purcha se of additional insurance as pre miums “rece ived” unde r for mer article 4.17 indicates that dividends applied to re newa l premium pay ments should also be consider ed premiums “re ceive d.”

Havingde te r

mi n e d th a t b o th d iv id e n d s a

p p li e d to th e purc hase of

additional insurance and dividends applied to rene wal premium pay ments are “re ceive d” under former article 4.17, we find it significa

nt that the leg islature cr eate d an ex p ress deduction for dividends applied to the purc ha se of

a dd iti on a l in sura

nce, bu t did

no t c re a te a

sim ila r d e du c tio n f

or div ide nd s a

pp lie d to
rene wal premium pay

ments. “[E] very

word e x cluded f

rom a statute must . . . be pre sumed to have been e x cluded for a purpose. Only when it is nece ssary to give eff ect to the c lear

leg islative intent
can w e insert a dditional words or re quirements into a statutory p rovision.” Cam e ro n v . Te rre ll & Garrett, Inc. , 618 S.W .2d 535, 540 (Tex. 1981). There fore , wher e there is a n express deduction for dividends used to pur chase additional insu rance, the omission of a similar deduc tion for dividends applied to rene wal pre mium pay ments sugg ests that the leg islature did not intend to allow such dividends to be deduc ted.

We n ote a lso that th is i nte rp re tatio n o f t he statut e do e s not le a d to an ab surd re su lt, as the leg islature may well have intended to tax the fix ed amount of pr emium contrac ted for in the8

p o l i cy , re g ardle ss of how it is paid and re g ardle ss of how policy dividends are used. S

e e E n te rgy Gu lf S tates, In c . v . S

um me rs , 2 82 S.W. 3d

43 3, 43 7 ( Te x. 20 09 ) ( statin g that le g isl a tiv e int e nt m us t be disce rned f

rom plain languag e of statute, “ unless enfor cin g t h e p lain lang uag e of the statute as
wr itt e n w ou ld p ro du c e a

bs ur d r e sults ” ); se e als o M oo re , 845 S.W .2d at 823 (“ Construction of a statute by the administrative ag ency char g ed wit

h its enforc ement is entitled to serious consider ation, so long a s the construc tion is re asonable and does not c ontradict the pla in lang uag e of the statute.”).

The Insurer s contend that the absenc e of statutory lang uag e allowing a deduc tion for dividends applied to rene wal pre mium pay ments is not signific ant beca use such pre miums are not

“ re c e ive d” by the c omp any in the fi rs t pla c e and the re fo re ne e d n ot b e de du c te d. Th e I ns ur e rs po se
a h yp o t h e t i c a l i nw h i c hani n s u r e d p u r c h a s e s a

p o l i c y w i t ha s t a t e d p r e m i u mo f

$ 1 0 0 p e r y e ar . In this hy pothetical, the insure d pay s $100 in y ear one, then r ece ives a dividend of $10 a t the end of the y ear , which t h e ins ured e lects to apply to rene wal pre mium pay ments, so that he pay s only an additional $90 in y ear

two. Acc ording to the I nsurer s, the company has only “re ceive d” a total of $190 from the insure d in y ear s one and two, but will be taxed, based on the C o m p t ro l ler’s int e rp re tatio n o f f

or me r a rt ic le 4. 11 , a s if

it h a d r e c e ive d $ 20 0 in

g ro ss p re miums. What th e I ns ur e rs ’ argument overlooks, howe ver, is tha t i n t h i s hy pothetical, the c ompany

has also re ceive d the $1 0 div ide nd amou

nt, wh ic h oth e rw ise wo uld have be e n pa id t o th e ins ur e d a c c or din g to t he te rm s of the c on tr a c t. T he re is n o p ra c tical distin c tio n b e tw e e n a sc e na ri o in wh ic h th e $1 0 d ivi de nd

is paid to the insured in ca sh and then used by the insured to pay

the $100 pre mium in y ear two, and
a sce nario in which the insured uses his $10 dividend to offset the $100 pr emium in y ear two, and then provides a

n additional $90. Under either s ce n ar i o , the insuranc e compa ny g ets $100 from the i n s u r e d i n y e ar t w o . T h e d i v i d e n d b e l o n g s t o t h e i n s u r e d , s o w h e n t h e i n s u r e d e l e c ts t o u se9

that $10 to pay

a re newa l p re m i u m , the insurer “re ceive s” $10 that would have otherwise g one to the insured. I n support of t heir posit ion, the I nsurer s cite All American Insuranc e Co. v. Ry lander , 73 S.W .3d 299 (Tex. A

pp.—Austin 2001, pet. denied) , and empha siz e this Court’s statement that the wo rd “ re c e ive d” in fo rm e r ar

tic le 4. 11 and the wo rd “ c oll e c te d” in f or me r a rt ic le 4. 17 “ c onno te a tra nsfer of something from without to within, a taking from an ex terna l source.” 73 S.W .3d at 302. Ac c or din g to the I ns ur e rs , th e re is n o tr ans fe r “ fr om w ith out to wi thi n” fo r d ivi de nd s a pp lie d to
rene wal pre mium pay

ments beca

use t he company mere ly cre dits the pol icy holder’s acc ount for the amount of the dividend a

nd then bills the policy

holder for the reduced premium. We disag ree . The divid en d , when it is decla red, be longs to the policy holder, a s require d to satisfy the
c omp any ’s c on tr a c tua l ob lig a tio n to pa y div ide nd s whe n ava ila

ble . T he div ide nd

is the n a pp lie d to the re newa l premium pay ment, to satisfy

the policy

holder’s c ontrac t u al o b l i gation to pay a fixed
annua l pr e mium. Wh ile it i s tr ue that th e c a shva lue of

the div ide nd

is n ot p hy sic a lly

tr ans fe rr e d to the policy holder a nd back a g ain, the pra ctical e ffe ct is the same. This is d i s t i n gu i s hable f rom the “interna l r o l l o v er ” transactions at issue in All American , in wh ic h a po lic y ho lde r p ur c ha se s a substitut e insuranc e policy from the same c ompany by rolling ove r the a ccumulate d cash va lue of the exis ting policy into the new policy
. See id. at 300-01. This Court compar ed the internal rollover t ra n s ac t i o nt o a b an k

cu s t o m er m o v i n g fu n d s fr o mo n e t y p e o f c h ec k i n g ac co u n tt o an o t h er , s t at i n g, “[T] he bank’ s balanc es ar e un c h a n g e d

— the only chang e is the provisions of the c ustomer’s che cking
acc ount. Sim ilarly , the insuranc e c o mpanies re tain the ac cumulation values, while modify ing the terms of how t hose values will be handle d in the future.” Id. a t 30 3 n. 4. As thi s la ngua g e su g g e sts , the interna l rollover tra

nsactions at issue in All American mere l y re p re s en ted the tra nsfer ofThe Comptroller pre sented summ ary -judg ment evidenc e that the Insurer s routinely repor t 5 dividends applied to pay

rene wal pre miums as a separ ate line item in their National Association of I nsuranc e Commissi oners (NAI C) annual state ments, while internal r ollover amounts ar e not 10 acc umulated ca sh values fr o m one for m to another, a

nd did not involve premiums “rec eived” or “collec ted” that would be subject to premium or maintena nce tax . See id. at 303. The tra nsfer red amounts did not chang e in cha rac t er, as they

wer e held by

the companie s on behalf of the policy holders both befor e and a fter the rollover. See id. at 302-03 (“ The a ccumulation value s of the old policies were withi n t h e co m p anies in t he customer s’ life-insura nce policie s, belong ed to the po lic y ho lde rs wh ile he ld b y

the c omp anie s, and

re ma ine d w ith in t

he c omp anie s in the c us tom e rs ’ new life -insuranc e policies a fter the rollovers.” ).

I n th e pr e se nt c a se, on t he oth e r h and , th e div ide nd a mou nts we re or ig ina lly char acte rized as surplus belong ing to the I nsurer s, wer e then rec hara cter ized a s dividends belong ing to the policy

holders but held by

the I nsurer s on their behalf, and were finally rec eived by

the Insurer s in the form of rene wal premium pay ments. We c onclude that these chang es in c hara cter , nece ssary for the pur pose of f ulfilling contra ct obligations, are suff icient to satisfy

the “f rom without to withi n” definition of “r ece ived” de scribed in All American
. See id. a t 30 2. I n o rd e r t o a do pt t he I ns ur e rs ’
rea soning that the dividend amounts simply rema ined par

t of the c ompany ’s surplus until they wer e subtracte d from the r enew al pre mium amount owed by the p o li c y holders, we would have to c onclude that the Insurer s failed to fulfill their c ontrac tual obliga t i o n to pay dividends and that the policy holders fa iled to fulfill their contractual obligation t o pay the fixed-rate rene wal pre miums set forth in their insura

nce policy . We cannot ig nore the structure of this transac tion, which differ s signific antly from the internal rollovers in All American
. See id. a t 30 3 ( “ Th is o pin ion a pp lie s o nly to internal rollover s.”). 5repor

ted sepa rate ly . Howeve r, as we s t at ed in All American Life InsuranceCo. v. Rylander , 7 3 S
. W
. 3 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 1 n . 1 (T ex . Ap p . — Au s t i n2 0 0 1 , p et
. d en i ed ), o ur d et erm i n at i o nd o es n o th i n ge on int e rn a l a c c ounti ngpr oc e dure s. Be cause Chief J ustice L aw wa s orig inally assig ned to author this opinion, authoring duties 6 wer e re assig ned as of

Aug ust 26, 2009. 11 Ba sed on the plain lang uag e of the statute, we hold that dividends applied to re duce
rene wal premium pay

ments are “re ceive d” under former article 4.11 and “c ollected” under f ormer article 4.17 of the insura

nce c ode, and are there fore subject t o insurance premium and maintena nce taxes for the y ear s at issue in this ap p ea l
. As a re sult, the trial court er red in g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of

the Insurer s and orde ring that t h ey b e issued a re fund for the taxes pa id u nd e r p ro te st.
CO NC LU SION We reve rse the t ri al court’s order a nd rende r judg ment that the Insurer s are not entitled to a re fund of insura nce pr emium or maintenanc e tax paid i n co n n ection with dividends
a pp lie d to re ne wa l pr e mium pa y me nts
.

__________________________________________

Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and He nson Chief J ustice L aw Not Par ticipating 6 Reverse d and Rende red Filed: Oc tober 9, 2009