As noted above, the defendant`s motion for summary judgment raised two questions of law based on uncontested facts: (1) whether Fogel de Walker`s claims, section 1860.1, and/or the doctrine of the deposited rate are excluded; and (2) on the basis that Fogel did not sign a subscription contract, that his allegation that he did not authorize the defendants to collect AIF royalties is excluded by the waiver, the Estoppel or the rules of reference. The court ruled in favour of the accused on both issues that are subject to independent review on appeal. (City of Malibu v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1383, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 777.) We believe that Fogel`s claims are not prescribed and reverse summary judgment. In its plain language, Section 1860.1 does not apply here, since Chapter 9 does not permit the collection of FIA royalties and an important distinction between our State`s pre-authorization system and the tariff system submitted by the Confederation excludes the application of the dubicondrine. Even if the language of the policies is not sufficient to establish that the subscription contracts were contracted by reference, it is sufficient to note that Fogel waived a certain FIA fee or did not claim it. On appeal, Fogel argues that the Tribunal erred in dismissing its application on two issues: the issue of the reference agreement and one of the issues relating to the accused`s right to immunity. We agree with the latter question, but we do not agree on the first.13 Nor does the fact that requests for changes in approved rates reveal expenses containing the amounts recovered in the form of FIA taxes, making the collection of these taxes by the defendants an act authorized in Chapter 9. We draw attention to the fact that the defendants are inaccurate when they repeatedly state, including during oral proceedings, that the documents filed in support of the scholarship price amendments have „listed” the amounts actually recovered by FIA lawyers. Indeed, the royalties of hedge funds do not appear anywhere in the voluminous documents submitted for approval by the Commissioner. These documents report only total expenses for the various lines of insurance, under the names „Other acquisitions, field inspection and collection costs” and „general expenses incurred.” It appears that the amount of FIA royalties is included in the total expenditures indicated, but cannot be identified as a separate expense item with respect to FIA royalties, administrative costs or any similar name.