research rick and ruth jones filled out an application for auto insurance in january of two thousand that they forgot to tell the insurance company that they had reached two children who lived at both of whom were youthful drugs one fifteen at the time the other eight tyler johns one of their sons turned sixty in march the question on the application asked to list all residents handle and whether the license or not entitle to rely on the information given on an application there is no requirement that an insurance company conduct an independent investigation into the information on the application or position is  permitted to rely on what's on the air cage and in reliance issued alephs if it were later that the information was less than truthful once the lies are discovered through post claim investigation against the hardship to the point neither knows nor should have known of the existence of the right to sue this is a classic case of the insurance company had no idea that tyler was fifteen at the times parents for first issue the p and then a few months later sixteen was in but was was even living his presence increases the risk there is no doubt in the stephenson's concede that armed with that information there is no just reason to they have been discovered within that first six months and your european insurance company has no duty to investigate and that's true i would agree with that but on the other hand if they want to rescind then they better or or at least  have the right rescind then they need to investigate within the first policy well that's that's where we go in a circle and i say with all due respect are we going to circle because illinois lost us insurance company has no obligation to investigate the information given on an appli have to invest so if they have the duty to invest it but they have a right to a vested gate or conduct under oath claim underwriting after a claim that what can they do with that information when they have here would not have been a test of list before given the number that the the cost we know or the cost goes up if you've got teenage drivers if families are tempted if they get to fifteen year olds and you don't know if they're going to get their license when they're sixteen a job yet god the family cars you just don't put down the application and they get good grades and they get their driver's license and a ten months later they have an accident i mean it just seems case is not really one of statutory interpretation so much as it is of whether or not the statute should be applied as it so are really getting at is whether this court has a good reason not to enforce statute we submit that the careful was suggested to the statute my answer is this your honor the legislature is writing a statue for the entire state and perhaps i'll go into maybe a little personal story that would help for instance when i was know that i didn't have the title to the vehicle i knew that if it was still in my parents name but a lay person maybe without as much background knowledge may have said i have this vehicle affects gave it to me i'm the owner of this vehicle when i apply for auto insurance i'm going to say yes i own so now two years down the road you're in an accident and the insurance on you can say well you know you didn't own this vehicle when you apply for this policy that's immaterial misrepresentation but i submit is that the legislature was concerned that some of these misrepresentations are going to be in decided on section one before now standard mutual has done a sufficient job certainly of explaining the prior cases the rest of the case the american service case and i'm think it would be disingenuous of me to contend that courts have yes however i will say that the american service case involved a person automobile policy that was a one year policy and as we discussed in our brief that was the deciding factor the insurer rescinded within one year here correct me on this but that is insurers choice because of it allows them to change their premiums with the most current information you know someone for instance the jones will most likely face a much higher premium now than they would have faced before this accident so that's the insur cases the difference between those cases is that discovery rule is applied with a legislature of say you have this cause of action where you need to bring it within a certain amount of time and courts have said well i think it's reasonable to allow  you know someone to person know that they actually have a cause of action so we're going to apply the discovery so they're in effect giving giving meaning to the legislature's intact they're saying the legislature intended for you to have this cause of action within two years of knowing within one year of knowing of this cause here we're telling the legislature that it didn't mean it so we're taking what the legislature said and we're taking it away as we discuss the practical realities of  deals a lot with insurance companies we've faced this statute for and we do tell them sorry you are out of luck obvious to cost money but you can you know discuss changing the statute with legislature and that's what we've argued from the beginning met and i submit from the reading of the oath of legislative history that the legislature knew exactly what it was doing we say comments five represent pettersen in the house where he acknowledged that automobile policies are often written for six months  specifically said we're talking about six months four years some of policies are written for six months but we want to protect zoomers and so we're going to say that jurors and not rescind after six months or a year mainly when we're doing personal  rescind within a prompt period of time when it had once it learned of the misrepresentation so i could be a few years down the road depending on when the policy was in fact in effect when the occurrence  no matter what was said in the policy application of previous time the insurance company can no longer attempt to present so it's providing clarity for horace surviving clarity for insurers with providing clarity for consumers so all this discussion of these previous misrepresentation cases where the courts delved into the materiality of misrepresentation are totally irrelevant here we don't concede at all that there was a material misrepresentation in this case what we're saying is that it's totally then there are a host of occasions they have not even sought to distinguish which stands for the proposition that the statute used or when the party who stands to benefit from the report which is the one who committed the  auto insurance which was a recent case for zero nine eleven twenty seven it's the saturn april of western the first district where it was that was a one year policy which is somewhat unusual for an auto policy to an