[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
Our final case of the day is 23-6067, Sharp v. State Farm, Utah.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
I'm going to deal with the insurance company.

[00:00:16] Speaker 05:
You may proceed.

[00:00:26] Speaker 05:
Thanks, Your Honor.

[00:00:27] Speaker 05:
May it please the Court?

[00:00:30] Speaker 05:
This case is a case in which it's very important to understand the underlying state court action preceded it.

[00:00:39] Speaker 05:
In that case, the Supreme Court opinion of which has been called Thirst and Want, the defendant at State Farm sought a narrow summary judgment.

[00:00:49] Speaker 05:
And we cite that summary judgment, particularly what they were seeking in the

[00:00:59] Speaker 05:
says pursuant to Rule 13 and 12 OS, Section 1651 and 1652, respectfully request this court to grant a summary judgment declaring that Section 36.

[00:01:11] Speaker 05:
36B of the automobile insurance policies do not, as a matter of law, provide staff to hold uninsured insurance.

[00:01:19] Speaker 05:
So they had a very specific request.

[00:01:22] Speaker 05:
And that is important to understand here because the summary judgment that they moved for, which was narrow,

[00:01:29] Speaker 05:
is what the court granted.

[00:01:32] Speaker 05:
And how do we know it's narrow?

[00:01:33] Speaker 05:
Because in the trial court, when that interlocutory appeal was allowed to go up, State Farm said, hey, this should stop discovery of the other claims, the remaining claims.

[00:01:47] Speaker 05:
Clearly, there were remaining claims in the case when the interlocutory appeal went up.

[00:01:53] Speaker 05:
And the court said, no, discovery's been

[00:01:59] Speaker 05:
that claims remained and were still in the state court.

[00:02:03] Speaker 05:
The one issue, the narrow issue they appealed, went up.

[00:02:08] Speaker 05:
The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs on that case against our client.

[00:02:12] Speaker 05:
And so that came back down.

[00:02:14] Speaker 05:
When it came back down to the district court, and it's also important to understand that Thurston won

[00:02:28] Speaker 05:
It was not that phrase has never been in the policy.

[00:02:32] Speaker 05:
It's a judicial doctrine that set up the courts.

[00:02:36] Speaker 05:
They also analyze the legislation that overruled that, that judicial doctrine.

[00:02:41] Speaker 05:
And then they simply looked at the policy and what they found was that policy had to express the state.

[00:02:49] Speaker 05:
didn't find that, case over.

[00:02:52] Speaker 05:
But it's only case over as it relates to the issues that were actually submitted.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
Can we talk about the issue that's before us, which is breach of contract claim, right?

[00:03:01] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:03:01] Speaker 04:
What provision of the contract do you contend is breached?

[00:03:05] Speaker 05:
The provision of the contract that's breached is the contract provision that says they're selling us U.M.

[00:03:10] Speaker 05:
Well, they did sell you U.M.

[00:03:13] Speaker 05:
No, they defined U.M.

[00:03:14] Speaker 05:
to have three components.

[00:03:16] Speaker 05:
They sold this guest passenger, which is a different thing.

[00:03:18] Speaker 05:
They could sell that, and that's fine.

[00:03:20] Speaker 05:
But their policy defined three components.

[00:03:23] Speaker 05:
It had to cover the insured, the relative resident members of their household, and guest passengers.

[00:03:28] Speaker 05:
And so it's a little like selling, you know, we have a contract for a TV, and they give us a radio.

[00:03:34] Speaker 05:
A radio has value.

[00:03:35] Speaker 05:
It's a thing people may want.

[00:03:37] Speaker 05:
But it's not what they sold us.

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
Well, didn't they sell you a contract that had that provision, but then it had an exclusion?

[00:03:44] Speaker 05:
The contract did not have that expressed preclusion.

[00:03:49] Speaker 05:
The Supreme Court found that there's kind of a roundabout thing.

[00:03:54] Speaker 05:
The stacking is a judicial thing that's on the side of the contract.

[00:03:58] Speaker 05:
The contract's here.

[00:03:59] Speaker 03:
The contract didn't say, you're not covered for an insured motorist if such and such is the case?

[00:04:06] Speaker 03:
It did not say that.

[00:04:07] Speaker 05:
And I think the important thing is to note here, the only thing they sold us, the only thing they billed us for, our contract claim relates to

[00:04:14] Speaker 05:
U.M.

[00:04:15] Speaker 05:
That's the only thing they sold us.

[00:04:18] Speaker 05:
And they defined that to have three components, they only gave us one.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
On remand and then... Well, I don't... We need to stop there because here's where it all is.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
And I guess what is confusing me about your argument is

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
Let's say there's three policies.

[00:04:39] Speaker 04:
The first one has a U.M.

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
for $25,000.

[00:04:41] Speaker 04:
The second has a U.M.

[00:04:42] Speaker 04:
for $50,000.

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
The third has a U.M.

[00:04:44] Speaker 04:
for $75,000.

[00:04:45] Speaker 04:
What the contract language says is you get the highest of whatever your U.M.s are.

[00:04:50] Speaker 04:
So in that instance, the U.M.

[00:04:52] Speaker 04:
from the third policy kicks in, $75,000.

[00:04:55] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:04:56] Speaker 05:
Well, what the contract actually says is that they may apply the limit from the highest policy.

[00:05:01] Speaker 05:
But I think the problem is that let's just focus on... Well, is it right, first of all?

[00:05:07] Speaker 05:
Well, I think it's not right because the contract is made.

[00:05:10] Speaker 04:
Well, every driver is going to say, you know what, I think I'll take the 75, right?

[00:05:15] Speaker 05:
Well, I think it's at state farm's discretion whether they apply the lowest or the highest.

[00:05:19] Speaker 05:
So the contract does not say that the insurance can choose the limit.

[00:05:25] Speaker 05:
Obviously, the plaintiffs always pick higher.

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
If someone were really attentive and read the language, they'd understand, one, there's no such thing as stacking.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
Only seems fair that we should get stacked, but the contract tells us it doesn't get stacked.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
And they would understand that you get the highest of the three, you say may.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
That's a feature of this.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
And then they decide.

[00:05:48] Speaker 04:
Do we want to buy or don't we want to buy?

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
And if they buy, maybe they didn't get the world's greatest deal.

[00:05:55] Speaker 04:
I don't know.

[00:05:55] Speaker 04:
I don't know if the policy is adjusted in any fashion.

[00:05:59] Speaker 04:
But it's not a breach.

[00:06:01] Speaker 04:
The State Farm gave what?

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
State Farm said State Farm would give.

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
That's my problem that you need to help me get passed.

[00:06:08] Speaker 05:
I understand where you're coming from, Your Honor, but I think that the express language and policy controls over the idea that if you read all the case law and if you read all the statutes that apply and if you squint hard enough, you can discern that potentially those circumstances would arise.

[00:06:23] Speaker 05:
But the express promise was for three-part coverage.

[00:06:26] Speaker 04:
Well, you're running straight into stacking them.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
You're saying the express promise was that we're getting three UM's,

[00:06:33] Speaker 04:
And the only reason to have three U.M.s is so you can stack them.

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
And Thurston says you can't stack them.

[00:06:38] Speaker 05:
No, what State Farm told us was that if we don't buy three policies on Cartoon, you're not going to have U.M.

[00:06:44] Speaker 05:
That was the logical implication of the contract.

[00:06:47] Speaker 05:
And I think we're not asking for stacking, obviously.

[00:06:50] Speaker 05:
Stacking would have given Thurston $75,000.

[00:06:54] Speaker 05:
This breach of contract claim essentially says you've sold us one thing.

[00:06:57] Speaker 05:
You didn't provide that thing.

[00:07:00] Speaker 05:
And so you owe us back the $500.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
You got something out of it.

[00:07:04] Speaker 04:
You got the guest insurance.

[00:07:08] Speaker 05:
Yes, we did, Your Honor.

[00:07:09] Speaker 05:
But again, we're not contesting that there was no consideration.

[00:07:12] Speaker 05:
We're saying the consideration given was not the consideration promised.

[00:07:14] Speaker 05:
You're saying we made a bad deal.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
We'd like a refund.

[00:07:18] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:07:19] Speaker 05:
We think it was a bad deal.

[00:07:22] Speaker 05:
But we think the problem is that State Farm promised three-part coverage.

[00:07:27] Speaker 05:
and state farms did not deliver three-part coverage, and that's a breach.

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
Stacking.

[00:07:33] Speaker 05:
No, stacking would, again, Your Honor, stacking would provide for different remedies.

[00:07:37] Speaker 05:
Stacking is a judicial doctrine that would have given 75.

[00:07:40] Speaker 04:
Well, isn't that how it would provide the union?

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
And the uninsured motorists that you're saying it didn't provide is by stacking?

[00:07:47] Speaker 04:
Well, stacking is against a judicial doctrine that's not in Congress.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
Well, then let me ask you, how would State Farm meet its, what you say was its promise to provide UM coverage that it breached?

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
How would it meet that?

[00:08:01] Speaker 05:
It would have provided UM coverage under the other policies.

[00:08:04] Speaker 04:
Stacking?

[00:08:05] Speaker 05:
Well, it could have stacked.

[00:08:06] Speaker 05:
It also, State Farm now is going to say that we would have provided

[00:08:12] Speaker 05:
The contract appears to tell the client that we're not going to provide UM unless you buy UM on the vehicle.

[00:08:19] Speaker 05:
It talks about your car, and your car is policy by policy.

[00:08:23] Speaker 05:
Other insurers at the same time provided household UM, which is a clear marketed product, and you're buying it for however many cars you have in your household.

[00:08:32] Speaker 05:
State Farm sold us something they never intended to deliver, and they did not in fact deliver.

[00:08:37] Speaker 05:
That is a breach, we think.

[00:08:39] Speaker 05:
I'll address briefly the Brandt case, which was relied on heavily by the district court, and State Farm said you don't even have to think about it.

[00:08:48] Speaker 05:
The reason you have to think about Brandt is because Brandt says that if there's a summary judgment that is pending when the dismissal occurs, that you can't dismiss without prejudice.

[00:09:01] Speaker 05:
We dismissed without prejudice because there was no summary judgment.

[00:09:05] Speaker 05:
They didn't contest that.

[00:09:07] Speaker 05:
case then got refiled in a timely manner.

[00:09:11] Speaker 05:
I know you deserve it.

[00:09:12] Speaker 05:
Unless there's another question at this time, I deserve the remainder.

[00:09:17] Speaker 05:
Thank you very much.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, my name is Sondra Hemerick and I represent the Appellee State Farm in this matter.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
So the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint here

[00:09:34] Speaker 02:
should be affirmed because the claims that plaintiffs are asserting, their breach of contract claim, is foreclosed on the merits by the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in Thurston v. State Farm, the Thurston One case.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
And although this didn't come up in the plaintiff's argument, I did want to just mention, so that's not an issue, that's not a question of issue preclusion or claim preclusion or claim splitting.

[00:09:57] Speaker 02:
The court doesn't actually need to reach any of those doctrines.

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
State Farm has not, as plaintiffs stated in their brief, conceded that issue of preclusion and claims that they don't apply here.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
In fact, we addressed those issues in, I think, about eight pages of our brief, from page 26 to, I believe, it's 34.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's 28 to 36.

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
But it's definitely addressed.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
It's not conceded.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
But it's also, as I said, not necessary to reach it, because Thurston's rationale controls

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
the decision in this case.

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
Well, Thurston says no stacking.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
And plaintiffs say, OK, fine.

[00:10:41] Speaker 04:
Thurston says no fair, but we're going to live by Thurston.

[00:10:45] Speaker 04:
So sad.

[00:10:47] Speaker 04:
But that's not the end of it, because you promised us something you couldn't deliver and didn't deliver.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
We agree.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
We can't force you to stack, because Thurston says so.

[00:10:58] Speaker 04:
But when you made the policy offer that you did and we signed, you were promising something you're not going to have to pay, which is U.M.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
coverage.

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
And so we overpaid.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
What's wrong with that argument?

[00:11:15] Speaker 02:
Well, several things, Your Honor.

[00:11:16] Speaker 02:
As you pointed out, when the plaintiff talks about State Farm promising U.M.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
coverage, and they call it three-point coverage,

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
You're correct, Judge Phillips.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
What they mean is stacking coverage.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
So the reason that you uncover it is because plaintiffs acknowledge that the policies after the first policy do provide a benefit.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
They provide guest passenger coverage.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
They don't provide nothing.

[00:11:46] Speaker 04:
Is it in the record whether the subsequent policies were at full price?

[00:11:51] Speaker 04:
In other words, it wasn't discounted because it's only guest passengers.

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
It's not explicit, but plaintiffs do allege that they were charged full premiums.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
Now, as you've pointed out, if that's their issue, that's an adequacy of consideration issue, and that's not an issue for this court to look into if it's no duress or fraud.

[00:12:10] Speaker 04:
We all know that if the customer went in to the state firm agent and said, I've got four cars.

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
And the State Farm agent said, well, good news, we're going to give you U.M.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
for $100,000 on this car and $100 on all of the rest of them, but you're not going to get anything for your U.M.

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
other than guest passenger, but you're going to pay full price.

[00:12:31] Speaker 04:
Do you still want it?

[00:12:33] Speaker 04:
The customer would probably say, no, I don't want that.

[00:12:36] Speaker 04:
And so there has been a bit of a

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
wrong here, is it just unredressable?

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
I agree there's no stacking.

[00:12:43] Speaker 04:
That's not the remedy.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
So a few things.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
I don't agree there's been a wrong here.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
Let me put that to the side for one second, because I do want to make sure to address the claim that's actually asserted here, which is a breach of contract claim, which is unquestionably foreclosed by Thurston.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
Because as I said, the reason that the UM coverage that's provided by the policies after the first policy in the household is less expansive than

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
the coverage that's provided by the first policy is because of the other insurance clause, the anti-stacking clause that's in the provision, and of course the statute as well, which says you don't get to aggregate.

[00:13:19] Speaker 03:
That's in the policy itself.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
Oh, it's absolutely in the policy.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
So it says, it tells them you won't get stacking.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
Yes, and the Supreme Court in Thurston directly addressed this, said,

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
The state farm didn't have to include that in the policy.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
The statute was enough, but they did.

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
Is that in the amendatory endorsement?

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
Yes, that's the amendatory endorsement.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
It's part of the policy.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
And the court said it's unambiguous.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
So we have an unambiguous provision in the policy that says it won't stack.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
So that's one of the reasons there's no wrong here.

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
If you're smart enough.

[00:13:55] Speaker 04:
and you have lots of time and you get your magnifying glass out, maybe consult a lawyer even, you might figure that out.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
But if you're just signing policy forms in the office, who figures that out?

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
So a couple things in that, the language is actually, it's really quite simple.

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
It says, it applies if other uninsured motor vehicle coverage applies.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
And then it says, if uninsured motor vehicle coverage, this is app 106, if uninsured motor vehicle coverage provided by this policy and one or more other vehicle policies issued to you or any resident relative by the state farm companies apply to the same bodily injury, then A, the uninsured motor vehicle coverage limits of such policies will not be added together to determine the most that may be paid.

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
That's pretty plain English.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
That's pretty close to what's in the statute, which the legislature obviously thought was clear.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
And again, Thurston specifically found that is unambiguous.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
So the statute requires State Farm to offer this coverage on every policy.

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
And in fact, if you were to look at, and I do have it handy, if you were to look at the actual statute, and the statute not only requires that State Farm and every other insurance carrier offer this coverage on every single policy,

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
It also prescribes the form you have to use.

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
The state firm doesn't have a choice about the form.

[00:15:23] Speaker 02:
And the form, and this can be found at section 3636 of the Oklahoma Insurance Code, the form says, Oklahoma law gives you the right to buy uninsured motorist coverage in the same amount as your bodily injury liability coverage.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
And then in all caps,

[00:15:44] Speaker 02:
The law requires us to advise you of this valuable right for the protection of you, members of your family, and other people who may be hurt while riding in your insured vehicle.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
Those are guest passengers, by the way.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
You should seriously consider buying this coverage in the same amount as your liability insurance coverage limit.

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
That's all in caps.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
The form goes on.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
But, so, State Farm Administration has to offer it.

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
They have to use that form.

[00:16:10] Speaker 04:
They could explain it better, though.

[00:16:11] Speaker 04:
Learn at hand may not have bought the extra policies.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
Greg Phillips might have bought the extra policy.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
And if you did, you would get guest passenger coverage.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
You would unquestionably get guest passenger coverage.

[00:16:24] Speaker 03:
Is there any allegation about the conversations between the agent who sold the policy and the owner who purchased the policy?

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
Not in this case.

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
And again, even if there were, that would hardly be any hand of a claim against State Farm, right?

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
The fact is, State Farm follows the statute in offering the coverage, and the coverage is very clear.

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
If a State Farm agent misled the purchaser, that would be a claim, that would lead to a claim against State Farm.

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
Again, I don't think there would be anything, I mean, I don't know what they would say, we don't have that, we don't have the allegation.

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
But there's no concealment or fraud or wrong.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
in State Farm offering the coverage that it's required to offer by statute and then charging for the coverage.

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
The plaintiffs know what they're getting charged and the policy explicitly and unambiguously tells them exactly what they are getting.

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
What plaintiffs are trying to do here is it's just Thurston, it's the Thurston theory dressed up in different clothes.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
The theory in Thurston was by charging premiums, separate premiums on each policy,

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
You, State Farm, have expressly agreed or expressly stated that you will provide stacked coverage.

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
That was the exception under the statute.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
The statute says the default is non-stacked coverage.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
That's not a silly argument.

[00:17:50] Speaker 03:
Most courts have adopted it, but they owe the legislature overrode that.

[00:17:54] Speaker 02:
Exactly.

[00:17:56] Speaker 02:
The legislature said, no, that was keel.

[00:17:57] Speaker 02:
We're not doing that anymore.

[00:17:59] Speaker 02:
Under the law since November 2014, the default is it doesn't stack unless you expressly say that it does.

[00:18:06] Speaker 02:
The plaintiff's argument was, well, by accepting these separate premiums, you expressly said that it's stacked.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
Thurston Court said, no, they absolutely rejected that.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
That is not an express provision for stacking.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
But that's exactly what they're arguing now.

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
They're using slightly different words, but they're basically saying, and I would suggest you look at paragraph 10 of their complaint where this is very clear.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
What their theory is, because you charged us for premiums, for separate premiums on each policy, you promised by doing that to give us stacked coverage.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
Those aren't the words they're using, but that is the theory.

[00:18:45] Speaker 02:
There is no other, they keep talking about state firm having promised a certain kind of coverage, but the only things they can point to are the payment of the premiums, and that was rejected by Thurston, and then the definition of uninsured motorist.

[00:19:02] Speaker 02:
But you have to read the policy as a whole.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
You can't just pick out that little piece and ignore the fact that the policy actually does tell you exactly what you get, which is non-stacked coverage.

[00:19:12] Speaker 02:
The other thing I would note here is

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
Plaintiff's argument is, right, so State Farm promised that they would deliver UM coverage and three-prong coverage on every policy and they didn't deliver it.

[00:19:26] Speaker 02:
So what's the basis for the allegation that they didn't deliver that coverage?

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
Because there's no allegation in this complaint that any of these plaintiffs had an accident and they made a claim and they weren't paid.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
The only possible basis for their allegation that they didn't get what they say they were promised is what the policy says.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
Because the policy says you don't get staff coverage.

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
So in effect, what they're saying is, you promised us something that the policy specifically says we're not getting.

[00:19:55] Speaker 02:
That's not a viable claim.

[00:19:56] Speaker 02:
You can't say a claim based on that.

[00:20:01] Speaker 02:
I think those are it.

[00:20:02] Speaker 02:
Any further questions?

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
Apparently not.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:20:23] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, I suspect I may give back time.

[00:20:26] Speaker 05:
So I know that doesn't happen in every argument.

[00:20:29] Speaker 05:
But the... We've never forced an attorney to use up this time or time.

[00:20:36] Speaker 05:
I appreciate that, Your Honor.

[00:20:38] Speaker 05:
The policy is clear that they promised one thing to us, and that is uninsured motorists.

[00:20:43] Speaker 05:
They defined uninsured motorists, and they didn't deliver uninsured motorists.

[00:20:47] Speaker 05:
Now they're saying, well, again, by reading this, it's one thing you could discern,

[00:20:51] Speaker 05:
That when we told you we were going to insure the resident relatives and the guest passengers on these second, third, fourth policies, we didn't really mean it.

[00:21:02] Speaker 05:
But it's a simple thing.

[00:21:03] Speaker 05:
If they want to write a contract that says that, that's fine.

[00:21:07] Speaker 05:
Describe guest passenger, sell guest passenger.

[00:21:15] Speaker 05:
That's what they built us for.

[00:21:16] Speaker 05:
That's what they sold to us.

[00:21:17] Speaker 05:
That's what they promised to us.

[00:21:19] Speaker 05:
And they didn't deliver it.

[00:21:20] Speaker 05:
And that's a breach of contract, Your Honor.

[00:21:22] Speaker 05:
And that issue was not reached by the open Supreme Court.

[00:21:26] Speaker 05:
And it wasn't essential to the judgment because they filed a very narrow summary judgment motion.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
Case is submitted.

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
Counselor excused.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
Court is recessed until call.

[00:21:44] Speaker 03:
Is that what we said?