All right, Mr. Creech. Please, the hear from you. May it be support. My name is Ashley White Creech and I'm here on behalf of the Plaintant Appellant Rothcamp. The crux of this appeal is whether or not the supplemental liability policy purchased by Mr. Camp is ambiguous regarding the provision of uninsured Moldeurous Benefits. The district court aired in finding that the contract unambiguously Excluded uninsured Moldeurous Benefits because Mr. Camp presented a Reasonable alternative interpretation of the contract's terms which provided Coverage because Mr. Camp presented a reasonable alternative interpretation of the Contract Language. The contract is ambiguous in North Carolina law requires courts to Construe ambiguous contracts in favor of coverage in favor of the Insured and to resolve ambiguities against the drafters. However, even if this court finds that the supplemental liability policy he purchased was unambiguously in its exclusion of uninsured Moldeurous Coverage, the district court aired in granting the motion for summary Judgment because the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act requires that all motor vehicle liability policies offer Uninsured Moldeurous Benefits equal to the liability limits. Regarding the issue of ambiguity, a contract is ambiguous if it's susceptible to Different for conflicting interpretations. A review of the applicable policy provisions demonstrates that it is a reasonable Construction to provide one million dollars in uninsured Moldeurous Benefits to Mr. Camp. Accordingly, an ambiguity exists and should be construed in favor of providing him with that coverage. The policy here consists of three things per the defendant's own definition. The Declaration page, common policy conditions, and one or more coverage parts. Because this is a national policy, I imagine the coverage parts refer to the individual State endorsements. The Declaration page of the policy provides one million dollars in uninsured Underinsured Moldeurous Coverage. In terms of the premium paid for it, it says, first. When a million dollars are up to one million dollars. It provides one million dollars. I don't see the words up to when I'm looking at the Declaration page
. The premium, the Declaration page says that the liability premium is per the certificate. If we look at the certificate, it doesn't mention uninsured or underinsured Moldeurous Coverage. But it does say that the certificate does not affirmatively, nor negatively amend, extend, or alter the coverage provided by the policy. Again, provided by the Declaration page, which is part of the policy. Next, moving on to common policies conditions. There is an exclusion in the policy that excludes liability arising out of or benefits payable under any uninsured or underinsured Moldeurous Law in any state. This exclusion applies to uninsured Moldeurous benefits arising by virtue of state law. Again, as I've just explained, the coverage granted here is per the Declaration page, not by virtue of state law. As I get to a little later, it's our position that state law does require these benefits and that this is an improper exclusion. But for purposes of whether or not the contract is ambiguous, the exclusion is by its own time. Interpreting an insurance policy is a Declaration page, part of that policy or is it just sort of a summary, which is not part, and not actually an operative part of the policy itself. Well, certainly in this case, and it's on the joint appendix on page 312, the defendants defined the policy as including the Declaration page. So it is in this case a part of the policy that grants an insured motorist coverage and the plaintiff did present expert testimony as well that the Declaration page, it is in practice a part of the policy. What do you do with the words per certificate? Well, we go to the certificate and that's just talking about the premium paid and the certificate is silent as to it. But what the certificate does say is that it does not affect the coverage provided by the policy. It neither affirmatively nor negatively immense extends or altered the coverage provided by the policy named within. So the certificate has no effect on the underlying. The certificate be what the insurer gave to R&K. Excuse me? Would the certificate be what the insurer gave to the Charlotte Harley dealership? Certainly they would have had the certificate in the way that the certificate in your view that's referenced. Yes, your honor. And that certificate doesn't, doesn't mention QM coverage. It does not mention QM coverage. However, it does say that it does not affect the underlying coverage offered by the policy and the underlying coverage offered by the policy does by the policy's own terms include uninsured motorist coverage
. We then go to the North Carolina endorsement. There is an endorsement for this is an excess policy. No, your honor. It's an automotive liability policy. And I guess they certainly term it as an excess policy. However, it provides liability coverage for operating a motor vehicle. My understanding in a review of North Carolina cases looking at excess policy. Just as a general matter, do it an excess policy. Be likely to provide additional U.M. coverage as well as additional personal liability protection. Certainly. If the motorcycle ran over to the restaurant or to have you all. Is it normally the function of an excess policy that add to U.M. coverage? No, generally speaking, that is not the normal function of an excess policy. However, in this case, what our burden is to is to present a reasonable interpretation of the contract based on the contract's own terms. Whether or not they intended for it to provide an insured motor, the defendant intended for it to provide an insured motorist coverage isn't a part of that analysis. Certainly, I don't think that they intended for the policy to provide it, but they in fact drafted a policy that did provide it. It's a 702-page policy. The North Carolina endorsement at issue does not contain any reference to un- or under insured motorist coverage. Your position is that the master policy by itself includes this $1 million in coverage. Well, I think what's properly before this court is the policy applicable in North Carolina, which does
. I think that there are five states, which perhaps the policy may make sense, and those are the five states that offer $1 million in uninsured motorist coverage in the state endorsements because that's consistent with the uninsured motorist coverage offered and provided by the declaration page. But if the master policy already provided that coverage, and what work do these endorsements do? I think in this case, the endorsement doesn't, isn't necessary for us to reach the result that it provides uninsured motorist coverage. You can't read the policy as a whole. You said that yourself. You can't pick and choose different components of the contract because it fits your interpretation. So what if these endorsements do know work? Because as you say, the master policy already includes $1 million in uninsured coverage. Aren't you reading the endorsements completely out of the contract? We're not. When you look at the individual state endorsement, they speak to you essentially how to implement the contract. Again, the fact that the North Carolina endorsement doesn't necessarily address implementation of claiming uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage may be evidence of the defendant's intent not to provide that coverage. However, it does not go to whether or not Mr. Camp's interpretation of the policy is reasonable. Even without an implementation provision, the contract's sufficiently definite for Mr. Camp to make a claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Additionally, this is a 702-page contract, insurance contract. Someone spent a lot of time and I imagine a lot of money drafting it. If they want to make the contract clear, it certainly wouldn't take that much more effort to do an individual declaration page for each state and to clarify the uninsured, underinsured motorist coverage offered in the individual state's endorsements. Again, the North Carolina endorsement is silent as to this issue. What we do have is an affirmative grant of coverage in the policy's declaration page, a certificate which doesn't add to or take away the coverage issue by the declaration page. Then we have an exclusion that by its own terms, giving the words that are plain and ordinary interpretation, doesn't apply. In the North Carolina endorsement. Why wouldn't it apply? The exclusion says it excludes liability arising out of or benefits payable under any insured motorist law in any state. In the district court found that persuasive. Why in your view is it not? It wouldn't apply for two reasons
. First, as I've already explained, because this is an uninsured motorist coverage arising by virtue of the contract itself. Secondly, the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act requires all motor vehicle liability policies to offer uninsured motorist coverage in equal amounts to the liability limits up to a million dollars. Here, this is by the policy's own definition, a motor vehicle liability policy. Certainly they say it's an excess motor vehicle liability policy, but the act does not make that distinction. It's all motor vehicle liability policy. The act doesn't, but the cases do, VASQA makes that distinction. VASQA involves an umbrella policy. So it's not a motor vehicle policy that was at issue in VASQA. There is a million dollar liability policy. And then there was an additional $20 million commercial umbrella policy. Here, we're dealing with a policy that provides essentially it's $970,000 in liability coverage. If Mr. Kim were to have injured someone else while he was operating the motor vehicle in under North Carolina law, that statute, which should be liberally construed in favor of coverage because we want to protect a new people from injury by uninsured drivers. Mr. Kim was responsible. He made the decision to purchase. If, suppose we disagree with you on the effect of the exclusion as between the policy, as between the exclusion provision and the declarations page, the question is which controls? And would you go to the underlying policies because terms and things that declarations pages tend to be somewhat cryptic, whereas underlying policies have more of an explanation. So I think the district court put just a positive weight on the underlying policies, which we hope in many instances are under the regulation of a state insurance commissioner, which says why, because we know people don't read all these policies from beginning to end or at least if they do more power to them, but most most don't. So you rely on in a sense on the insurance commissions as to what is and isn't permissible and statutes. And as between if there's a conflict between the declarations page and that underlying provision, which should control? Well, in here and in my time has expired, if I may briefly answer your question. My review of the case law shows that in North Carolina, if there is a conflict within the policy, there's not necessarily one that can hold over the other. The relevant inquiry is simply rather whether or not there is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Yeah, I understand that insured gets the benefit of ambiguity
. But I'm wondering whether that same principle applies. I know it applies within the contract itself or when the language of a particular provision is susceptible legitimately to several interpretations. I was just wondering here whether it did or whether the operative document really is the underlying file. Well, even if the declaration page of this court finds it's not part of the underlying policy, there is still the exclusion is still not clear. Our interpretation is still reasonable here by the plain language of the exclusion, which only applies to uninsured motorist coverage, arising by virtue of state statutory or common law. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Thank you. All right. Mr. Renning, please to hear from you, sir. Thank you. My name is David Rainey. I'm here on behalf of Empire Fire Insurance Company. In April of 2011, Roth Camp purchased two different policies of insurance, one of minimum limit policy, and one in excess policy to cover him for his use of a motorcycle rented from Harley Davidson in Charlotte. The first policy was a minimum limit policy that met the statutory requirements in the state of North Carolina for an offer of liability and U.M. coverage, which is really the only relevant thing here. And pursuant to that, Empire paid to Mr. Camp $30,000 of uninsured motorist coverage when he was injured by an uninsured driver. So that policy is not an issue here. The second or the..
. The declaration... Wouldn't the declaration page lead someone to believe that they had a million dollars of uninsured motorist coverage? I think as... He's just looking at it as an uninsured motorist coverage in the left hand column, and then you go over and it says $1 million, and then it was... Price per certificate, which I don't know if it's somebody who would know what that was. I think under the totality of the circumstances it would not. You could look at a declaration page, and you could see that million dollars, but you're also obligated as the reader of the document to see what else is on that page. And that is what Judge Anderson pointed to is the myriad of other things that were available. The declaration page itself? On the declaration page, yes sir, it says, Perse served. And it refers the reader to the certification of insurance coverage. It also says... Certification what certification? The certification that your client gave to the Harley dealership in Charlottes? Yes sir. The certification of coverage. How is the plaintiff supposed to know that? Well, the plaintiff has on the rental form itself, the plaintiff certifies that he has in fact been provided with that. When he initials that he wants supplemental liability coverage below that, he has certified, or the renter himself says, I have gotten a copy of that. Well, I get your point at that
. The question I asked your opposing counsel has said you're supposed to look at the entire policy, not just in isolation. But I guess the counter to that is that this takes... I mean, there are a number of twists and turns to get to the answer in this case that Judge Anderson methodically got to in his opinion. But of course, he's a lawyer, a very smart judge. Why should a reasonable insured have to go through these machinations? If it first blush, you look at the declaration and it says, $1 million in uninsured coverage. Well, why would a reasonable person, a layperson understand that to mean that he had in fact purchased full coverage? Well, let me respond to that by backing up a little bit. There are levels of insured here. There is ultimately an insurance company who through a broker offers coverage to Harley Davidson in Chicago, who is really the named insured, and then other dealerships become additional insured under the policy. The writer in this case, Mr. Camp, becomes a permissive additional insured when he went to the policy. There's no requirement in North Carolina or any other law that any other state that I'm aware of. And we have a look that requires that a renter of a car or motorcycle or any other type of equipment is required to be provided with the master policy. And then in this case, the supplemental policy and those types of things. As opposed to a situation where you or I may go through our local state barm nationwide or all state agent to take out coverage, then the agent is required to talk to us to make a specific offer. I mean, I share some of the concerns that Judge Diaz has about somebody looking at that declaration for agent thinking they had a million dollars of uninsured, motorist coverage. Why can't the insurer just say in the declaration page? This policy does not include uninsured motorist coverage or does not provide additional uninsured motorist coverage. I mean, what is the bar to just stating in plain English something that would help a purchase of this insurance understand? There are always things that an insurer can say in a document. In this case, the insurer said that there are other forms and it refers the reader to the certification insurance page, as well. Judge Diaz points out that it requires the insurer to pursue somewhat of a tortured trail. I do understand that few people bother to read the whole policy, that they purchase. They don't have time for it
. But on the other hand, when you do provide them with a declaration's page, it purports to be a clear summary of the terms of the policy as an aid to a layperson trying to understand what exactly they have purchased them. I would be befuddled by that. I mean, I'm trying to say if I looked at that declaration's page, I might, if I had time, inquires to what the person is certificate means, but just looking at it, you think I think I had a million dollars of uninsured motorist coverage. Well, again, the declaration's page refers the person somewhere else, as I was saying. To the certificate. Yes, or to the certificate. It also mentions other forms. The insurer or the renter in this case also. How many forms does the insurer have to put together to arrive at the correct conclusion? I mean, this individual is not a lawyer. Well, then even lawyers, it would be tricky because as I understand it, he purchased the insurance shortly before he went out for a ride. Yes, sir. So this is not a situation where an insurer gets all these policies. This is a situation where empire is ensuring a national Harley Davidson for lack of a better phrase who then has additional insurers under the policy. This is not the situation where an agent sits down with someone and goes over every jot and tiddle of a policy as required by a state law when you're offering your state farm agent is offering to you covered. That's not this scenario. This policy is written to cover a nationwide chain of outlets. The outlet itself is not the owner of the policy. They are an additional insurer under the policy. Neither is the person who rents the vehicle. They are an insured permissive user. But they're not getting all this stuff. Nor would they get this stuff. Nor would they choose to, what they want to get this
. Well, that may be true as a general matter. The point is, I mean, the question is whether this decorations page, which is that one thing somebody would look at is affirmatively misleading. I don't think it is. And the law, your honor in North Carolina is very clear that a declaration page is not the thing that gives coverage. In this case, the thing that gives coverage is the policy itself. Other documents may come into play for instance, exclusions of coverage. Then why have the declaration page? It's to provide a, just a guide of what's in what may or may not be in the policy. We mean what may or may not be in the policy. Well, in this case, it's at the top it has commercial rental liability. And there is no commercial liability rental here. There's not a reference to it so that no one could say that there's commercial liability rental coverage on this policy. I mean, there must be some purpose to the decorations page. It's what you hand out to. There must be some obligation on your part to be upfront in terms of what the decorations page accurately summarizes. Well, the underlying policy is always a higher premium if somebody wants to take out a million dollars. Well, they could not. And that's the point of this case in the state of North Carolina. Mr. Comp could not get U.M. coverage. He could never get U.M
. coverage under this policy. No matter what, if he had walked in, which he did not. Why is that? Because this policy doesn't afford U.M. coverage. Because it's an ex-imp policy. Yes, sir, because it's an ex-imp policy. Does he know that? I don't know what Mr. Comp knows. But in this case, he's gotten two policies. Does he know the difference? Does he know the fact that an ex-imp policy doesn't generally afford U.M. coverage? Does he know that? I don't know if Mr. Comp knows that or not. He knows he has one policy that an minimum limits policy and it what coverage it provides. And then there is this policy, which is an excess policy, which the state of North Carolina does not require. Not only does it not require that it includes U.M. coverage. Does it? Is it prohibited? Oh, they could. Any insurer can write into its policies, whatever it is. Whatever coverage is insurer-want. Yes, sir. And this is what is the national Harley willing to provide two potential renters in all of the states of the United States. It has picked out six states in particular where it will offer this coverage. But that is only because it is statutorily mandated in those states. Harley has chosen not to offer this U.M. coverage in any other state where it's not applied. That may be finding good. The problem is that the Dogon Declarations page, that you could say everything you've just said to us. You could say, you know, there's no North Carolina law does not mandate an additional uninsured motorist coverage. And we don't provide it. Instead of writing $1 million right by the uninsured motorist column on the Declaration's page. And, you know, I don't have any problem with what North Carolina law requires or permits. But, you know, you are dealing with with layman. And, you know, there's just an absence of candor. Well, I don't think it's an absence of candor at all. The insured, in this case, if they look at this, is referred to other documents too. And, insured. What documents did the candor see? The only thing that has known that he received is the certificate where he initials stating that he did, in fact, receive that. I don't believe that he ever got the Declaration page itself. Now, what I, in this case, though, what we're talking about, and what we've been talking about up to this point is ambiguity. That, to me, is step two of this process. Step one is, does North Carolina require, first of all, that this coverage be included? Second of all, if it does, then it would require an offer. But, in this case, it doesn't require the coverage at all in the state of North Carolina, in an excess policy
. And this is what is the national Harley willing to provide two potential renters in all of the states of the United States. It has picked out six states in particular where it will offer this coverage. But that is only because it is statutorily mandated in those states. Harley has chosen not to offer this U.M. coverage in any other state where it's not applied. That may be finding good. The problem is that the Dogon Declarations page, that you could say everything you've just said to us. You could say, you know, there's no North Carolina law does not mandate an additional uninsured motorist coverage. And we don't provide it. Instead of writing $1 million right by the uninsured motorist column on the Declaration's page. And, you know, I don't have any problem with what North Carolina law requires or permits. But, you know, you are dealing with with layman. And, you know, there's just an absence of candor. Well, I don't think it's an absence of candor at all. The insured, in this case, if they look at this, is referred to other documents too. And, insured. What documents did the candor see? The only thing that has known that he received is the certificate where he initials stating that he did, in fact, receive that. I don't believe that he ever got the Declaration page itself. Now, what I, in this case, though, what we're talking about, and what we've been talking about up to this point is ambiguity. That, to me, is step two of this process. Step one is, does North Carolina require, first of all, that this coverage be included? Second of all, if it does, then it would require an offer. But, in this case, it doesn't require the coverage at all in the state of North Carolina, in an excess policy. And, because it doesn't require that, there is no offer at all. Empire concedes, in this case, there is not an offer of uninsured motorist coverage. There was never a charge for uninsured motorist coverage. So, that's step one. First thing you have to do before you can even get to whether an offer was ambiguous is, determine whether an offer was ever required in the first place. And, in this case, Empire concedes, it was not offered because it was not required. And, that then closes, really, in my mind, the book on this. There is no requirement of an offer. There is no requirement of a coverage. It really was required, whether you're feared to offer it, or two different facts. No, sir, not. In this case, when it says, when we're looking at the deck page, it refers somebody to something else. But, then you're getting right back to whether or not the policy was ambiguous. I don't understand your requirements, argument. It's true, you're not required to offer anything, but if a reasonable insured perceived that you were in fact offering. I don't think that a reasonable answer. That's the question. In fact, I'm sure it would, because of the very things that were cited by Judge Anderson. First of all, the policy itself says, we do not ensure any liability under the uninsured or underinsured motorist law of any state of the United States. The policy language is where you go to find out what the coverage is. A declarations page on the North Carolina law does not create coverage. R&K can only sell what it is authorized to sell, R&K being the local dealership. It can't sell more than it has to sell
. And, because it doesn't require that, there is no offer at all. Empire concedes, in this case, there is not an offer of uninsured motorist coverage. There was never a charge for uninsured motorist coverage. So, that's step one. First thing you have to do before you can even get to whether an offer was ambiguous is, determine whether an offer was ever required in the first place. And, in this case, Empire concedes, it was not offered because it was not required. And, that then closes, really, in my mind, the book on this. There is no requirement of an offer. There is no requirement of a coverage. It really was required, whether you're feared to offer it, or two different facts. No, sir, not. In this case, when it says, when we're looking at the deck page, it refers somebody to something else. But, then you're getting right back to whether or not the policy was ambiguous. I don't understand your requirements, argument. It's true, you're not required to offer anything, but if a reasonable insured perceived that you were in fact offering. I don't think that a reasonable answer. That's the question. In fact, I'm sure it would, because of the very things that were cited by Judge Anderson. First of all, the policy itself says, we do not ensure any liability under the uninsured or underinsured motorist law of any state of the United States. The policy language is where you go to find out what the coverage is. A declarations page on the North Carolina law does not create coverage. R&K can only sell what it is authorized to sell, R&K being the local dealership. It can't sell more than it has to sell. Mr. Comp claims that he asked for full coverage. What he was given was the full coverage that was available by R&K to sell to him, which did not include uninsured motorist coverage. So, for the very reason, cited by Judge Anderson in his opinion, seven of them, the way I counted it, there was no way that a reasonable person would presume under the totality of the circumstances that they had uninsured motorist coverage here. You can't take one, you have to interpret everything together, and you can't take one piece of paper out of this and say it has primacy above all other documents available in this case. You have to read everything together. The problem is that one page is the one page somebody would be most likely to read. Not in this case. In this case, they don't get the certification of coverage, which doesn't charge a premium for uninsured motorist coverage. Doesn't take it or give it away. He was given the declarations page, wasn't he? I don't believe he was given the declarations page. I think what he has is his rental agreement, the brochure that he admitted that he did not read, and the certificate of coverage page, which never mentions uninsured motorist coverage. Has never afforded the declarations page? My understanding is he does not have the deck. There was never handed to him or not as far as I know. There's no evidence in this case that he got the declaration page. What he says, and he... That's not a basis for his claim. Well, the complaint actually changed the original complaint simply said that under North Carolina law, he should have been offered U.M. coverage. In discovery, the declarations page was provided, and then the argument became about the declarations page
. Mr. Comp claims that he asked for full coverage. What he was given was the full coverage that was available by R&K to sell to him, which did not include uninsured motorist coverage. So, for the very reason, cited by Judge Anderson in his opinion, seven of them, the way I counted it, there was no way that a reasonable person would presume under the totality of the circumstances that they had uninsured motorist coverage here. You can't take one, you have to interpret everything together, and you can't take one piece of paper out of this and say it has primacy above all other documents available in this case. You have to read everything together. The problem is that one page is the one page somebody would be most likely to read. Not in this case. In this case, they don't get the certification of coverage, which doesn't charge a premium for uninsured motorist coverage. Doesn't take it or give it away. He was given the declarations page, wasn't he? I don't believe he was given the declarations page. I think what he has is his rental agreement, the brochure that he admitted that he did not read, and the certificate of coverage page, which never mentions uninsured motorist coverage. Has never afforded the declarations page? My understanding is he does not have the deck. There was never handed to him or not as far as I know. There's no evidence in this case that he got the declaration page. What he says, and he... That's not a basis for his claim. Well, the complaint actually changed the original complaint simply said that under North Carolina law, he should have been offered U.M. coverage. In discovery, the declarations page was provided, and then the argument became about the declarations page. So it wasn't alleged in the complaint. Was the complaint amended? No, ma'am. I don't think... The complaint said that he relied on the declaration. No, ma'am. What I had mentioned was that Judge Anderson had specifically gone into the issue of what a reasonable person, and I'm not sure the reasonable person standard had been argued in the case until this appeal. But the problem with what Judge Anderson found was that there were at least seven different things that said when you read this in the totality, you can't just single out. You can't create an ambiguity where none exists. By singling out a single phrase or a single sentence. That is... Are you sure in case you're generally required for a alliance? I'm sorry, don't understand. If you just...you buy the policy, you get what the policy offers. Is...is
. So it wasn't alleged in the complaint. Was the complaint amended? No, ma'am. I don't think... The complaint said that he relied on the declaration. No, ma'am. What I had mentioned was that Judge Anderson had specifically gone into the issue of what a reasonable person, and I'm not sure the reasonable person standard had been argued in the case until this appeal. But the problem with what Judge Anderson found was that there were at least seven different things that said when you read this in the totality, you can't just single out. You can't create an ambiguity where none exists. By singling out a single phrase or a single sentence. That is... Are you sure in case you're generally required for a alliance? I'm sorry, don't understand. If you just...you buy the policy, you get what the policy offers. Is...is...is...is...is...is...reliance? Something that has to be pleaded before someone can... And...take coverage? Again, I'm, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. and as far as pleading reliance on the agent or what they're told by in this case. And if you have someone seeking coverage under a particular policy, it's the question of whether the coverage is there, or whether it's not there
...is...is...is...is...reliance? Something that has to be pleaded before someone can... And...take coverage? Again, I'm, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. and as far as pleading reliance on the agent or what they're told by in this case. And if you have someone seeking coverage under a particular policy, it's the question of whether the coverage is there, or whether it's not there. It wouldn't be a question of whether they alleged a reliance in it, would it? I suppose that there are scenarios where an insured could claim that they relied only broker to put proper coverage in place. But in this case, nothing, no such thing has been alleged. What Mr. Comp has said in his sworn testimony is I told them to give me full coverage, which they gave him. They gave him everything that they had to give him. And in this case, the policy itself says we don't provide uninsured motorist coverage. The certificate, which he acknowledges having received, says nothing about you're getting UM coverage. We're offering it to you. The fact that it's not discussed can't be a basis for saying it must therefore be on the policy because it wasn't mentioned. Well, does that mean everything that's possibly insurable, that wasn't mentioned is somehow covered under this policy? No, that wouldn't make any sense. The... All I was suggesting to you is, normally under insurance law, if the coverage is there, it doesn't require reliance because for reasons we know people don't read these. As a general rule, I would say yes or they do not read them. And you're right, either the coverage is there or it's not. And in this case, it's not there. And nor was there a requirement that it be there. Well, that's the thing that's the coverage is there from the declaration. Well, again, as we've mentioned in our brief, the a decorations page in and of itself can't create coverage under North Carolina law, which is controlling law. Are you going round and round? A bit, yes sir. Thank you. Thank you
. It wouldn't be a question of whether they alleged a reliance in it, would it? I suppose that there are scenarios where an insured could claim that they relied only broker to put proper coverage in place. But in this case, nothing, no such thing has been alleged. What Mr. Comp has said in his sworn testimony is I told them to give me full coverage, which they gave him. They gave him everything that they had to give him. And in this case, the policy itself says we don't provide uninsured motorist coverage. The certificate, which he acknowledges having received, says nothing about you're getting UM coverage. We're offering it to you. The fact that it's not discussed can't be a basis for saying it must therefore be on the policy because it wasn't mentioned. Well, does that mean everything that's possibly insurable, that wasn't mentioned is somehow covered under this policy? No, that wouldn't make any sense. The... All I was suggesting to you is, normally under insurance law, if the coverage is there, it doesn't require reliance because for reasons we know people don't read these. As a general rule, I would say yes or they do not read them. And you're right, either the coverage is there or it's not. And in this case, it's not there. And nor was there a requirement that it be there. Well, that's the thing that's the coverage is there from the declaration. Well, again, as we've mentioned in our brief, the a decorations page in and of itself can't create coverage under North Carolina law, which is controlling law. Are you going round and round? A bit, yes sir. Thank you. Thank you. Screech? Screech wouldn't have... It was going to provide uninsured motorist coverage. Wouldn't it likely be spelled out? Well, that's an awfully, that the decorations page is an awfully bare-boned document normally when coverage of that magnitude is provided. Wouldn't it be spelled out in somewhere in a document like the policy or a certificate or somewhere else? Well, the declaration page, first in this case, is by the defendant's own definition of part of the policy. And yes, is as opposed as repeatedly under North Carolina law, it's not. Is that wrong? I have not seen any North Carolina case that says a declaration page is not a part of a policy. You say that is correct. That is incorrect. Yes, there are some North Carolina cases that have construed in favor of policy language, not necessarily over the coverage drafted in the declaration page, but applying just normal contract to be right on that. I don't think they're... I don't think they're North Carolina cases. It's a declaration, so it's not part of a policy. In fact, I looked at them and they don't come out and say that. They just don't. That's correct. And the declaration page is a part of this policy. Certainly, I think if I were drafting this policy, it might be beneficial to explain the coverage, perhaps in the individual state endorsement, but that was not done when we look at the North Carolina endorsement for this policy. So the point is made repeatedly that North Carolina law didn't require the insurer to offer this. Is that germane in your view? I think if the policy is
. Screech? Screech wouldn't have... It was going to provide uninsured motorist coverage. Wouldn't it likely be spelled out? Well, that's an awfully, that the decorations page is an awfully bare-boned document normally when coverage of that magnitude is provided. Wouldn't it be spelled out in somewhere in a document like the policy or a certificate or somewhere else? Well, the declaration page, first in this case, is by the defendant's own definition of part of the policy. And yes, is as opposed as repeatedly under North Carolina law, it's not. Is that wrong? I have not seen any North Carolina case that says a declaration page is not a part of a policy. You say that is correct. That is incorrect. Yes, there are some North Carolina cases that have construed in favor of policy language, not necessarily over the coverage drafted in the declaration page, but applying just normal contract to be right on that. I don't think they're... I don't think they're North Carolina cases. It's a declaration, so it's not part of a policy. In fact, I looked at them and they don't come out and say that. They just don't. That's correct. And the declaration page is a part of this policy. Certainly, I think if I were drafting this policy, it might be beneficial to explain the coverage, perhaps in the individual state endorsement, but that was not done when we look at the North Carolina endorsement for this policy. So the point is made repeatedly that North Carolina law didn't require the insurer to offer this. Is that germane in your view? I think if the policy is... If this court finds the policy is ambiguous, no. However, even if this court finds out the policy unambiguously excluded, uninsured motorist benefits, the summary judgment grant by the district court still should be reversed because North Carolina law does in fact require uninsured motorist coverage for all motor vehicle liability policies. Where are we talking about in males? That's correct. In the by virtue of the statute itself, it says that the liability insurance that should be provided is... The uninsured motorist coverage that should be provided is equal to the liability coverage afforded under the policy, which in this case would be $970,000. And that's... I think makes sense just as a practical matter, typically you pay more for higher limits of liability insurance. And so just as a policy issue, you would want to have that protection given back to you. So if I'm paying $4 million in liability, I get that coverage and uninsured motorist benefits. But here, the North Carolina... We have a deck page that grants the policy an exclusion that by its own terms does not take away that policy. A North Carolina endorsement, which also does not address in any way or under-entered motorist coverage. There's no policy language in the policy saying, hey, if you're in North Carolina, you don't get these benefits. Even if it was in the North Carolina endorsement, we would still be arguing that that's an ambiguous policy because it conflicts with the declaration page. But here, we're not trying to choose between competing policy provisions
... If this court finds the policy is ambiguous, no. However, even if this court finds out the policy unambiguously excluded, uninsured motorist benefits, the summary judgment grant by the district court still should be reversed because North Carolina law does in fact require uninsured motorist coverage for all motor vehicle liability policies. Where are we talking about in males? That's correct. In the by virtue of the statute itself, it says that the liability insurance that should be provided is... The uninsured motorist coverage that should be provided is equal to the liability coverage afforded under the policy, which in this case would be $970,000. And that's... I think makes sense just as a practical matter, typically you pay more for higher limits of liability insurance. And so just as a policy issue, you would want to have that protection given back to you. So if I'm paying $4 million in liability, I get that coverage and uninsured motorist benefits. But here, the North Carolina... We have a deck page that grants the policy an exclusion that by its own terms does not take away that policy. A North Carolina endorsement, which also does not address in any way or under-entered motorist coverage. There's no policy language in the policy saying, hey, if you're in North Carolina, you don't get these benefits. Even if it was in the North Carolina endorsement, we would still be arguing that that's an ambiguous policy because it conflicts with the declaration page. But here, we're not trying to choose between competing policy provisions. There's a grant of coverage and it's silent throughout the remainder of the policy. Mr. Kance, interpretation of the policy, and it's not whether or not he understood at the time of purchase, he paid for this coverage. He entered into a contract. And when you review the contract, he's provided a reasonable interpretation of that contract, which provides $1 million in uninsured motorist coverage. The contract's ambiguous because he has a reasonable interpretation that ambiguity under North Carolina law must be construed in favor of providing him for that coverage. Even if this court finds it's unambiguous, the coverage is required under the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act because he purchased a motor vehicle liability policy that provided $970,000 in liability coverage. So today we ask that you reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment that gets Mr. Kance. Thank you. We thank you. Come down and greet the attorneys and then proceed into our final case.
All right, Mr. Creech. Please, the hear from you. May it be support. My name is Ashley White Creech and I'm here on behalf of the Plaintant Appellant Rothcamp. The crux of this appeal is whether or not the supplemental liability policy purchased by Mr. Camp is ambiguous regarding the provision of uninsured Moldeurous Benefits. The district court aired in finding that the contract unambiguously Excluded uninsured Moldeurous Benefits because Mr. Camp presented a Reasonable alternative interpretation of the contract's terms which provided Coverage because Mr. Camp presented a reasonable alternative interpretation of the Contract Language. The contract is ambiguous in North Carolina law requires courts to Construe ambiguous contracts in favor of coverage in favor of the Insured and to resolve ambiguities against the drafters. However, even if this court finds that the supplemental liability policy he purchased was unambiguously in its exclusion of uninsured Moldeurous Coverage, the district court aired in granting the motion for summary Judgment because the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act requires that all motor vehicle liability policies offer Uninsured Moldeurous Benefits equal to the liability limits. Regarding the issue of ambiguity, a contract is ambiguous if it's susceptible to Different for conflicting interpretations. A review of the applicable policy provisions demonstrates that it is a reasonable Construction to provide one million dollars in uninsured Moldeurous Benefits to Mr. Camp. Accordingly, an ambiguity exists and should be construed in favor of providing him with that coverage. The policy here consists of three things per the defendant's own definition. The Declaration page, common policy conditions, and one or more coverage parts. Because this is a national policy, I imagine the coverage parts refer to the individual State endorsements. The Declaration page of the policy provides one million dollars in uninsured Underinsured Moldeurous Coverage. In terms of the premium paid for it, it says, first. When a million dollars are up to one million dollars. It provides one million dollars. I don't see the words up to when I'm looking at the Declaration page. The premium, the Declaration page says that the liability premium is per the certificate. If we look at the certificate, it doesn't mention uninsured or underinsured Moldeurous Coverage. But it does say that the certificate does not affirmatively, nor negatively amend, extend, or alter the coverage provided by the policy. Again, provided by the Declaration page, which is part of the policy. Next, moving on to common policies conditions. There is an exclusion in the policy that excludes liability arising out of or benefits payable under any uninsured or underinsured Moldeurous Law in any state. This exclusion applies to uninsured Moldeurous benefits arising by virtue of state law. Again, as I've just explained, the coverage granted here is per the Declaration page, not by virtue of state law. As I get to a little later, it's our position that state law does require these benefits and that this is an improper exclusion. But for purposes of whether or not the contract is ambiguous, the exclusion is by its own time. Interpreting an insurance policy is a Declaration page, part of that policy or is it just sort of a summary, which is not part, and not actually an operative part of the policy itself. Well, certainly in this case, and it's on the joint appendix on page 312, the defendants defined the policy as including the Declaration page. So it is in this case a part of the policy that grants an insured motorist coverage and the plaintiff did present expert testimony as well that the Declaration page, it is in practice a part of the policy. What do you do with the words per certificate? Well, we go to the certificate and that's just talking about the premium paid and the certificate is silent as to it. But what the certificate does say is that it does not affect the coverage provided by the policy. It neither affirmatively nor negatively immense extends or altered the coverage provided by the policy named within. So the certificate has no effect on the underlying. The certificate be what the insurer gave to R&K. Excuse me? Would the certificate be what the insurer gave to the Charlotte Harley dealership? Certainly they would have had the certificate in the way that the certificate in your view that's referenced. Yes, your honor. And that certificate doesn't, doesn't mention QM coverage. It does not mention QM coverage. However, it does say that it does not affect the underlying coverage offered by the policy and the underlying coverage offered by the policy does by the policy's own terms include uninsured motorist coverage. We then go to the North Carolina endorsement. There is an endorsement for this is an excess policy. No, your honor. It's an automotive liability policy. And I guess they certainly term it as an excess policy. However, it provides liability coverage for operating a motor vehicle. My understanding in a review of North Carolina cases looking at excess policy. Just as a general matter, do it an excess policy. Be likely to provide additional U.M. coverage as well as additional personal liability protection. Certainly. If the motorcycle ran over to the restaurant or to have you all. Is it normally the function of an excess policy that add to U.M. coverage? No, generally speaking, that is not the normal function of an excess policy. However, in this case, what our burden is to is to present a reasonable interpretation of the contract based on the contract's own terms. Whether or not they intended for it to provide an insured motor, the defendant intended for it to provide an insured motorist coverage isn't a part of that analysis. Certainly, I don't think that they intended for the policy to provide it, but they in fact drafted a policy that did provide it. It's a 702-page policy. The North Carolina endorsement at issue does not contain any reference to un- or under insured motorist coverage. Your position is that the master policy by itself includes this $1 million in coverage. Well, I think what's properly before this court is the policy applicable in North Carolina, which does. I think that there are five states, which perhaps the policy may make sense, and those are the five states that offer $1 million in uninsured motorist coverage in the state endorsements because that's consistent with the uninsured motorist coverage offered and provided by the declaration page. But if the master policy already provided that coverage, and what work do these endorsements do? I think in this case, the endorsement doesn't, isn't necessary for us to reach the result that it provides uninsured motorist coverage. You can't read the policy as a whole. You said that yourself. You can't pick and choose different components of the contract because it fits your interpretation. So what if these endorsements do know work? Because as you say, the master policy already includes $1 million in uninsured coverage. Aren't you reading the endorsements completely out of the contract? We're not. When you look at the individual state endorsement, they speak to you essentially how to implement the contract. Again, the fact that the North Carolina endorsement doesn't necessarily address implementation of claiming uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage may be evidence of the defendant's intent not to provide that coverage. However, it does not go to whether or not Mr. Camp's interpretation of the policy is reasonable. Even without an implementation provision, the contract's sufficiently definite for Mr. Camp to make a claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Additionally, this is a 702-page contract, insurance contract. Someone spent a lot of time and I imagine a lot of money drafting it. If they want to make the contract clear, it certainly wouldn't take that much more effort to do an individual declaration page for each state and to clarify the uninsured, underinsured motorist coverage offered in the individual state's endorsements. Again, the North Carolina endorsement is silent as to this issue. What we do have is an affirmative grant of coverage in the policy's declaration page, a certificate which doesn't add to or take away the coverage issue by the declaration page. Then we have an exclusion that by its own terms, giving the words that are plain and ordinary interpretation, doesn't apply. In the North Carolina endorsement. Why wouldn't it apply? The exclusion says it excludes liability arising out of or benefits payable under any insured motorist law in any state. In the district court found that persuasive. Why in your view is it not? It wouldn't apply for two reasons. First, as I've already explained, because this is an uninsured motorist coverage arising by virtue of the contract itself. Secondly, the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act requires all motor vehicle liability policies to offer uninsured motorist coverage in equal amounts to the liability limits up to a million dollars. Here, this is by the policy's own definition, a motor vehicle liability policy. Certainly they say it's an excess motor vehicle liability policy, but the act does not make that distinction. It's all motor vehicle liability policy. The act doesn't, but the cases do, VASQA makes that distinction. VASQA involves an umbrella policy. So it's not a motor vehicle policy that was at issue in VASQA. There is a million dollar liability policy. And then there was an additional $20 million commercial umbrella policy. Here, we're dealing with a policy that provides essentially it's $970,000 in liability coverage. If Mr. Kim were to have injured someone else while he was operating the motor vehicle in under North Carolina law, that statute, which should be liberally construed in favor of coverage because we want to protect a new people from injury by uninsured drivers. Mr. Kim was responsible. He made the decision to purchase. If, suppose we disagree with you on the effect of the exclusion as between the policy, as between the exclusion provision and the declarations page, the question is which controls? And would you go to the underlying policies because terms and things that declarations pages tend to be somewhat cryptic, whereas underlying policies have more of an explanation. So I think the district court put just a positive weight on the underlying policies, which we hope in many instances are under the regulation of a state insurance commissioner, which says why, because we know people don't read all these policies from beginning to end or at least if they do more power to them, but most most don't. So you rely on in a sense on the insurance commissions as to what is and isn't permissible and statutes. And as between if there's a conflict between the declarations page and that underlying provision, which should control? Well, in here and in my time has expired, if I may briefly answer your question. My review of the case law shows that in North Carolina, if there is a conflict within the policy, there's not necessarily one that can hold over the other. The relevant inquiry is simply rather whether or not there is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Yeah, I understand that insured gets the benefit of ambiguity. But I'm wondering whether that same principle applies. I know it applies within the contract itself or when the language of a particular provision is susceptible legitimately to several interpretations. I was just wondering here whether it did or whether the operative document really is the underlying file. Well, even if the declaration page of this court finds it's not part of the underlying policy, there is still the exclusion is still not clear. Our interpretation is still reasonable here by the plain language of the exclusion, which only applies to uninsured motorist coverage, arising by virtue of state statutory or common law. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Thank you. All right. Mr. Renning, please to hear from you, sir. Thank you. My name is David Rainey. I'm here on behalf of Empire Fire Insurance Company. In April of 2011, Roth Camp purchased two different policies of insurance, one of minimum limit policy, and one in excess policy to cover him for his use of a motorcycle rented from Harley Davidson in Charlotte. The first policy was a minimum limit policy that met the statutory requirements in the state of North Carolina for an offer of liability and U.M. coverage, which is really the only relevant thing here. And pursuant to that, Empire paid to Mr. Camp $30,000 of uninsured motorist coverage when he was injured by an uninsured driver. So that policy is not an issue here. The second or the... The declaration... Wouldn't the declaration page lead someone to believe that they had a million dollars of uninsured motorist coverage? I think as... He's just looking at it as an uninsured motorist coverage in the left hand column, and then you go over and it says $1 million, and then it was... Price per certificate, which I don't know if it's somebody who would know what that was. I think under the totality of the circumstances it would not. You could look at a declaration page, and you could see that million dollars, but you're also obligated as the reader of the document to see what else is on that page. And that is what Judge Anderson pointed to is the myriad of other things that were available. The declaration page itself? On the declaration page, yes sir, it says, Perse served. And it refers the reader to the certification of insurance coverage. It also says... Certification what certification? The certification that your client gave to the Harley dealership in Charlottes? Yes sir. The certification of coverage. How is the plaintiff supposed to know that? Well, the plaintiff has on the rental form itself, the plaintiff certifies that he has in fact been provided with that. When he initials that he wants supplemental liability coverage below that, he has certified, or the renter himself says, I have gotten a copy of that. Well, I get your point at that. The question I asked your opposing counsel has said you're supposed to look at the entire policy, not just in isolation. But I guess the counter to that is that this takes... I mean, there are a number of twists and turns to get to the answer in this case that Judge Anderson methodically got to in his opinion. But of course, he's a lawyer, a very smart judge. Why should a reasonable insured have to go through these machinations? If it first blush, you look at the declaration and it says, $1 million in uninsured coverage. Well, why would a reasonable person, a layperson understand that to mean that he had in fact purchased full coverage? Well, let me respond to that by backing up a little bit. There are levels of insured here. There is ultimately an insurance company who through a broker offers coverage to Harley Davidson in Chicago, who is really the named insured, and then other dealerships become additional insured under the policy. The writer in this case, Mr. Camp, becomes a permissive additional insured when he went to the policy. There's no requirement in North Carolina or any other law that any other state that I'm aware of. And we have a look that requires that a renter of a car or motorcycle or any other type of equipment is required to be provided with the master policy. And then in this case, the supplemental policy and those types of things. As opposed to a situation where you or I may go through our local state barm nationwide or all state agent to take out coverage, then the agent is required to talk to us to make a specific offer. I mean, I share some of the concerns that Judge Diaz has about somebody looking at that declaration for agent thinking they had a million dollars of uninsured, motorist coverage. Why can't the insurer just say in the declaration page? This policy does not include uninsured motorist coverage or does not provide additional uninsured motorist coverage. I mean, what is the bar to just stating in plain English something that would help a purchase of this insurance understand? There are always things that an insurer can say in a document. In this case, the insurer said that there are other forms and it refers the reader to the certification insurance page, as well. Judge Diaz points out that it requires the insurer to pursue somewhat of a tortured trail. I do understand that few people bother to read the whole policy, that they purchase. They don't have time for it. But on the other hand, when you do provide them with a declaration's page, it purports to be a clear summary of the terms of the policy as an aid to a layperson trying to understand what exactly they have purchased them. I would be befuddled by that. I mean, I'm trying to say if I looked at that declaration's page, I might, if I had time, inquires to what the person is certificate means, but just looking at it, you think I think I had a million dollars of uninsured motorist coverage. Well, again, the declaration's page refers the person somewhere else, as I was saying. To the certificate. Yes, or to the certificate. It also mentions other forms. The insurer or the renter in this case also. How many forms does the insurer have to put together to arrive at the correct conclusion? I mean, this individual is not a lawyer. Well, then even lawyers, it would be tricky because as I understand it, he purchased the insurance shortly before he went out for a ride. Yes, sir. So this is not a situation where an insurer gets all these policies. This is a situation where empire is ensuring a national Harley Davidson for lack of a better phrase who then has additional insurers under the policy. This is not the situation where an agent sits down with someone and goes over every jot and tiddle of a policy as required by a state law when you're offering your state farm agent is offering to you covered. That's not this scenario. This policy is written to cover a nationwide chain of outlets. The outlet itself is not the owner of the policy. They are an additional insurer under the policy. Neither is the person who rents the vehicle. They are an insured permissive user. But they're not getting all this stuff. Nor would they get this stuff. Nor would they choose to, what they want to get this. Well, that may be true as a general matter. The point is, I mean, the question is whether this decorations page, which is that one thing somebody would look at is affirmatively misleading. I don't think it is. And the law, your honor in North Carolina is very clear that a declaration page is not the thing that gives coverage. In this case, the thing that gives coverage is the policy itself. Other documents may come into play for instance, exclusions of coverage. Then why have the declaration page? It's to provide a, just a guide of what's in what may or may not be in the policy. We mean what may or may not be in the policy. Well, in this case, it's at the top it has commercial rental liability. And there is no commercial liability rental here. There's not a reference to it so that no one could say that there's commercial liability rental coverage on this policy. I mean, there must be some purpose to the decorations page. It's what you hand out to. There must be some obligation on your part to be upfront in terms of what the decorations page accurately summarizes. Well, the underlying policy is always a higher premium if somebody wants to take out a million dollars. Well, they could not. And that's the point of this case in the state of North Carolina. Mr. Comp could not get U.M. coverage. He could never get U.M. coverage under this policy. No matter what, if he had walked in, which he did not. Why is that? Because this policy doesn't afford U.M. coverage. Because it's an ex-imp policy. Yes, sir, because it's an ex-imp policy. Does he know that? I don't know what Mr. Comp knows. But in this case, he's gotten two policies. Does he know the difference? Does he know the fact that an ex-imp policy doesn't generally afford U.M. coverage? Does he know that? I don't know if Mr. Comp knows that or not. He knows he has one policy that an minimum limits policy and it what coverage it provides. And then there is this policy, which is an excess policy, which the state of North Carolina does not require. Not only does it not require that it includes U.M. coverage. Does it? Is it prohibited? Oh, they could. Any insurer can write into its policies, whatever it is. Whatever coverage is insurer-want. Yes, sir. And this is what is the national Harley willing to provide two potential renters in all of the states of the United States. It has picked out six states in particular where it will offer this coverage. But that is only because it is statutorily mandated in those states. Harley has chosen not to offer this U.M. coverage in any other state where it's not applied. That may be finding good. The problem is that the Dogon Declarations page, that you could say everything you've just said to us. You could say, you know, there's no North Carolina law does not mandate an additional uninsured motorist coverage. And we don't provide it. Instead of writing $1 million right by the uninsured motorist column on the Declaration's page. And, you know, I don't have any problem with what North Carolina law requires or permits. But, you know, you are dealing with with layman. And, you know, there's just an absence of candor. Well, I don't think it's an absence of candor at all. The insured, in this case, if they look at this, is referred to other documents too. And, insured. What documents did the candor see? The only thing that has known that he received is the certificate where he initials stating that he did, in fact, receive that. I don't believe that he ever got the Declaration page itself. Now, what I, in this case, though, what we're talking about, and what we've been talking about up to this point is ambiguity. That, to me, is step two of this process. Step one is, does North Carolina require, first of all, that this coverage be included? Second of all, if it does, then it would require an offer. But, in this case, it doesn't require the coverage at all in the state of North Carolina, in an excess policy. And, because it doesn't require that, there is no offer at all. Empire concedes, in this case, there is not an offer of uninsured motorist coverage. There was never a charge for uninsured motorist coverage. So, that's step one. First thing you have to do before you can even get to whether an offer was ambiguous is, determine whether an offer was ever required in the first place. And, in this case, Empire concedes, it was not offered because it was not required. And, that then closes, really, in my mind, the book on this. There is no requirement of an offer. There is no requirement of a coverage. It really was required, whether you're feared to offer it, or two different facts. No, sir, not. In this case, when it says, when we're looking at the deck page, it refers somebody to something else. But, then you're getting right back to whether or not the policy was ambiguous. I don't understand your requirements, argument. It's true, you're not required to offer anything, but if a reasonable insured perceived that you were in fact offering. I don't think that a reasonable answer. That's the question. In fact, I'm sure it would, because of the very things that were cited by Judge Anderson. First of all, the policy itself says, we do not ensure any liability under the uninsured or underinsured motorist law of any state of the United States. The policy language is where you go to find out what the coverage is. A declarations page on the North Carolina law does not create coverage. R&K can only sell what it is authorized to sell, R&K being the local dealership. It can't sell more than it has to sell. Mr. Comp claims that he asked for full coverage. What he was given was the full coverage that was available by R&K to sell to him, which did not include uninsured motorist coverage. So, for the very reason, cited by Judge Anderson in his opinion, seven of them, the way I counted it, there was no way that a reasonable person would presume under the totality of the circumstances that they had uninsured motorist coverage here. You can't take one, you have to interpret everything together, and you can't take one piece of paper out of this and say it has primacy above all other documents available in this case. You have to read everything together. The problem is that one page is the one page somebody would be most likely to read. Not in this case. In this case, they don't get the certification of coverage, which doesn't charge a premium for uninsured motorist coverage. Doesn't take it or give it away. He was given the declarations page, wasn't he? I don't believe he was given the declarations page. I think what he has is his rental agreement, the brochure that he admitted that he did not read, and the certificate of coverage page, which never mentions uninsured motorist coverage. Has never afforded the declarations page? My understanding is he does not have the deck. There was never handed to him or not as far as I know. There's no evidence in this case that he got the declaration page. What he says, and he... That's not a basis for his claim. Well, the complaint actually changed the original complaint simply said that under North Carolina law, he should have been offered U.M. coverage. In discovery, the declarations page was provided, and then the argument became about the declarations page. So it wasn't alleged in the complaint. Was the complaint amended? No, ma'am. I don't think... The complaint said that he relied on the declaration. No, ma'am. What I had mentioned was that Judge Anderson had specifically gone into the issue of what a reasonable person, and I'm not sure the reasonable person standard had been argued in the case until this appeal. But the problem with what Judge Anderson found was that there were at least seven different things that said when you read this in the totality, you can't just single out. You can't create an ambiguity where none exists. By singling out a single phrase or a single sentence. That is... Are you sure in case you're generally required for a alliance? I'm sorry, don't understand. If you just...you buy the policy, you get what the policy offers. Is...is...is...is...is...is...reliance? Something that has to be pleaded before someone can... And...take coverage? Again, I'm, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. and as far as pleading reliance on the agent or what they're told by in this case. And if you have someone seeking coverage under a particular policy, it's the question of whether the coverage is there, or whether it's not there. It wouldn't be a question of whether they alleged a reliance in it, would it? I suppose that there are scenarios where an insured could claim that they relied only broker to put proper coverage in place. But in this case, nothing, no such thing has been alleged. What Mr. Comp has said in his sworn testimony is I told them to give me full coverage, which they gave him. They gave him everything that they had to give him. And in this case, the policy itself says we don't provide uninsured motorist coverage. The certificate, which he acknowledges having received, says nothing about you're getting UM coverage. We're offering it to you. The fact that it's not discussed can't be a basis for saying it must therefore be on the policy because it wasn't mentioned. Well, does that mean everything that's possibly insurable, that wasn't mentioned is somehow covered under this policy? No, that wouldn't make any sense. The... All I was suggesting to you is, normally under insurance law, if the coverage is there, it doesn't require reliance because for reasons we know people don't read these. As a general rule, I would say yes or they do not read them. And you're right, either the coverage is there or it's not. And in this case, it's not there. And nor was there a requirement that it be there. Well, that's the thing that's the coverage is there from the declaration. Well, again, as we've mentioned in our brief, the a decorations page in and of itself can't create coverage under North Carolina law, which is controlling law. Are you going round and round? A bit, yes sir. Thank you. Thank you. Screech? Screech wouldn't have... It was going to provide uninsured motorist coverage. Wouldn't it likely be spelled out? Well, that's an awfully, that the decorations page is an awfully bare-boned document normally when coverage of that magnitude is provided. Wouldn't it be spelled out in somewhere in a document like the policy or a certificate or somewhere else? Well, the declaration page, first in this case, is by the defendant's own definition of part of the policy. And yes, is as opposed as repeatedly under North Carolina law, it's not. Is that wrong? I have not seen any North Carolina case that says a declaration page is not a part of a policy. You say that is correct. That is incorrect. Yes, there are some North Carolina cases that have construed in favor of policy language, not necessarily over the coverage drafted in the declaration page, but applying just normal contract to be right on that. I don't think they're... I don't think they're North Carolina cases. It's a declaration, so it's not part of a policy. In fact, I looked at them and they don't come out and say that. They just don't. That's correct. And the declaration page is a part of this policy. Certainly, I think if I were drafting this policy, it might be beneficial to explain the coverage, perhaps in the individual state endorsement, but that was not done when we look at the North Carolina endorsement for this policy. So the point is made repeatedly that North Carolina law didn't require the insurer to offer this. Is that germane in your view? I think if the policy is... If this court finds the policy is ambiguous, no. However, even if this court finds out the policy unambiguously excluded, uninsured motorist benefits, the summary judgment grant by the district court still should be reversed because North Carolina law does in fact require uninsured motorist coverage for all motor vehicle liability policies. Where are we talking about in males? That's correct. In the by virtue of the statute itself, it says that the liability insurance that should be provided is... The uninsured motorist coverage that should be provided is equal to the liability coverage afforded under the policy, which in this case would be $970,000. And that's... I think makes sense just as a practical matter, typically you pay more for higher limits of liability insurance. And so just as a policy issue, you would want to have that protection given back to you. So if I'm paying $4 million in liability, I get that coverage and uninsured motorist benefits. But here, the North Carolina... We have a deck page that grants the policy an exclusion that by its own terms does not take away that policy. A North Carolina endorsement, which also does not address in any way or under-entered motorist coverage. There's no policy language in the policy saying, hey, if you're in North Carolina, you don't get these benefits. Even if it was in the North Carolina endorsement, we would still be arguing that that's an ambiguous policy because it conflicts with the declaration page. But here, we're not trying to choose between competing policy provisions. There's a grant of coverage and it's silent throughout the remainder of the policy. Mr. Kance, interpretation of the policy, and it's not whether or not he understood at the time of purchase, he paid for this coverage. He entered into a contract. And when you review the contract, he's provided a reasonable interpretation of that contract, which provides $1 million in uninsured motorist coverage. The contract's ambiguous because he has a reasonable interpretation that ambiguity under North Carolina law must be construed in favor of providing him for that coverage. Even if this court finds it's unambiguous, the coverage is required under the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act because he purchased a motor vehicle liability policy that provided $970,000 in liability coverage. So today we ask that you reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment that gets Mr. Kance. Thank you. We thank you. Come down and greet the attorneys and then proceed into our final case