whether or not the appellate court committed error when it overruled the factual findings of the trial court and the declaratory judgment action underlying this matter when it failed to apply the against the manifest weight of the evidence of standard the third question is whether or not the appellate court committed here when it failed to find that the insurance company the others insurance company failed to meet their burden to show that the limiting single occurrence provision apply i respectfully submit to you that the answer to all three of those questions is yes but i also argue to you that you do not have to answer yes to all three of those questions if you answer yes to any of those questions  i respect to submit you must overturn you pellet majority's decision now i think i would also say that i think the the zero underlying primary rationale it gives rise to a yes answer to all three of those questions is found in the cogent reasoning in justice writes the dissent in this case i think it's important to keep in mind that in this matter during the trial  was put in evidence also the photographic evidence of the scene the positioning of the voice the location of the boys in relationship to each other the nature of the pick this was the testimony was opinion in large measure i presume because they cited it safe stating that the boys travel to the pit together entered simultaneously and got caught within moments of each other respect really there was not one and the way the bidens worked quite differently contract in the muck differently this is circumstantial evidence that further support serves as a basis for the police officers opinions again which were an action test in any way trial and and try to rescue him and he got caught and then later and five minutes later one of the parents looking for them they came down to get caught this is all i want to curse but that is not how the test the reason it's not how it should be applied i would certainly concur we have evidence for the reason he went in there was from perhaps the jump and to try to jump the water but for the person yes i believe it's clear that there is no evidence that the other boy that there was a negligent condition created but as justice white points out i want to refer to her thinking again and i just would answer that question with justice rates words of if you'll permit me because i think she does it more eloquently  to justice as my name is jean cauldron and i represent addison insurance company in this manner initially i would briefly like to address the standard def review issue that's been present appellate court to react correctly determined that it novo review was appropriate the trial court in this case considered all the documents and deposition transcripts excerpts from those transcripts were read into the record by both the boys more likely heading home from the fishing pond because the weather had changed and a storm was coming up that they were likely taking a shortcut to cars house which was one hundred fifty yards from the pond that they intended to jump over the pet as a pass to walk around ted because that and i'm going to really be taking a stand here i tried the case and i don't remember the answer to that question why you know i want to say perhaps  honor is that in fact the boys were together they left the other they were together when they died and that they both entered that pit at the same time or shortly after one another those were the conclusions and beliefs in very similar ways one from hypothermia one from hypothermia drowning secondary to hypothermia their bodies were on top of each other next to each other touching dr bill i'm actually on top of each other  and that was days later when they were that was when they were found yes but but they were they were obviously together i mean their bodies were touching and in fact one voice body was on top of the other the doctors actually felt that they were probably huddling together because they were attempting to keep warm as their bodies were succumbing to hypothermia it was the testimony of the worker that was excerpts from the depositions would be read by both parties that was done that was done by addison no objections for asserted by the defendants to have any of the testimony pointed out to the court  in the same way we did not make objections when they were reading their and our possessions the court agreed that that was the process that we would follow no one objected by and it was agreed that we would argue wait and reserve the whites with respect to weight of testimony we we submitted as i indicated in the testimony of the officers in which in which they concluded based on their investigation that the boys were together that they were attempting to get to cars house which was in fact very close to the place where they were injured that a storm was coming that their bodies were touching we submitted the testimony of dr case and dr loam both doctors said that they believed the most sensible and reasonable  and i believe that my court clearly demonstrates clearly states that you look at the acts of the insurer that in fact those words are quoted by a court of stated by the court page four twenty eight of the l second site and states citing mason with approval the proposition that the type of activity in which the insured in gauges should be considered in determining the number of occurrences on my case law they are seeking to have this court implemented a rule that will unduly burden insurers and require them to go through tortured analyses of the acts of plaintiffs in order to determine their exposure in tunis so where do your  no bearing on whether or not donald perishes conduct was such that there were separate and intervening human acts by him that somehow caused one voice the proximate cause one boy's dad and another separate and human intervening act that caused another boy stuff under that analysis and it wouldn't make any difference if these boys entered th area twenty four hours of work or if one one knew his body didn't show up and so he went back to see where he was and jumped in to help him and it's under your analysis it's if it's totally the can be relevant in a case with a with the right set of facts shawn or in other words i do believe that if a sufficient amount of time passes  and this was the analysis in some points which contrary to councils contention this court did except in my court if if the passage of time is such that it can reasonably be stated or asserted that the nature of the defendant's conduct changed or that the defendant knew or should have known that corrective measures should be taken then and  that event you may have a separate occurrence depending on the facts but it would be a much more extreme and a clear set of facts than those presented here and which indicate that these two boys were together that they ended up at this pit and that they both work entrapped in the sand and  it states that that the determination as to the number of occurrences is really a burden that's placed on the insured but is an occurrence the idea of the term occurrence a limiting condition while there isn't a currenc many of us do here in illinois in order to get a determination our right to determine that but even if the burden of proof is on the other side i think it is clear that we met that burden the restaurant in serving the tainted food it does not address the acts of the plaintiff plaintiffs in going into the restaurant or in eating the food and just does not mean the only other thing i wanted to mention in response to the comments when one claimant has entered and one another claimant is injured and nevertheless those cases involve one occurrence because they do in fact focus on the nature of the defendant's conduct one case for example of fraudulent scheme in another case the manufacture and distribution of a product so so i don't think that just by virtue of the fact that there's a time differential or more geographic differential means that there's more i want to comment i think clearly that's not necessarily the case but but i do believe that that when you when you move into hypotheticals like that that the one that you posited he one does see that that time and space might in fact be looked at in a given case to determine whether or not there was a sufficient passage of time or sufficient geographical span to result and and you know finding a two occurrences based on the facts of a given case i think i don't think we can just dismiss the mason case that quickly is i'm so sorry to hear you said that the focus on the patrons of the restaurant was on the restaurant you know serving the food and regardless of where you put the focus the instrument tell would be of harm in that case the tainted food and the the herm here or the the excavation pit or whatever we want to call it is the same i don't think you would say that if a boy came along three weeks later and you were sure a dead boy and the boy went into the pit and died the same way you wouldn't say well we're not liable because that's really the same occurrence the that had occurred three weeks ago with respect to this other boy who we review in the record to indicate whether there was i mean the positive going to change but whether there was a different intent on the part of the victim or a different time way between when it occurred i mean aren't those things important in this case the time lag can be important in a given case i definitely agree with that such as how is i i do not agree that motivations plants are are factors that should be considered in determining the cause of a given injury i think that you have to look at the defendant's conduct in order to make that determination i don't necessarily disagree with that but i think that if if the second for which i believe i might have it wrong but i think touches the second boy if he if indeed what's in the record with the record that we review is that this boy went in to try to save the first boy who was there very yes it then in and of itself says that he could have chosen to walk away and there would have never been the tragedy that occurred with respect to the second boy if his motivation relate to the legal proximate cause of this accident and donald perishes responsibility for i think that the only thing that you can look cats to determine donald paris is liability is the reasonable inference to be drawn here is that the boys were together that they entered the pit within a short proximity of time from one another that they would not have had eugene holland was that was the plaintiff's expert in the handling injury case he testified that it was i'm sorry times that i thank you just says i appreciate because she made some statements which i think are not quite in accord with the record and i know that they were not made in bad faith and any way shape or form but i think they need to be rebutted one simply put if you look at the record you look at the testimony that was stipulated into evidence as and by the way and i believe if you look at the records and i can cite the page it's miss golden who's speaking when we stipulate all the that the documents the photographs officers came in without objection there was never objected to pure and simple now it's called and suggested that the record shows that first point one and the other point came behind him well that's mistaken it's just not true the officer testif and let's go back to the size of his pick there was a big piece of property which was very large few acres it was a pit somewhere in it which was much smaller you know it was maybe twenty thirty feet by  forty feet he the owner was scooping out sand and putting in clay and it was that pit inside this depression boys were caught the testimony was by the police officers that they concluded that the second boy mr hodgins came in from a different location because one boy was caught in water all the way around him with his feet his both legs almost entirely submerged submerged in the muck that's one of the reasons that led them to conclude he came from one direction and jumped that way well say north the other boy mr hodgins was at the edge of the water park his body was not in the water one leg was caught in the muck facing directly opposite and that's why the officers concluded based on their own personal observations and their forensic train that it's likely more likely than not that they came nate entered from two different locations from two different reasons for two different purposes that was undisputed in this case mr look here and know that i think it's important though but i know it's going to be repetitive  so there were numerous overlapping x on his part there was the fact that and please consider this i forget the name of the case we recall there's a case where there was a plume of smoke and debris and the wind blew it in different directions and the course forget exactly what case that was but the courts determined that these are separate individual x because you have different changes and conditions here when these boys get in trip there's a storm going on that's that's when they went missing in so far as one led hoarding to the testimony and contradicted likely entered a different point in a different location for different reason and we don't know the  that the weather itself could have played a role in why he got caught so there's a number of competing and overlapping intervening next year and i do want to reach back though if i may say the  runners hit up kind of in your questioning this is no one no one disputed that there was coverage once there is coverage it is the burden of the insurance company to prove they had be limiting provision applies simply put they did not meet that burden they had the burden of proof the only evidence of record in this evidence of the police officers in the medical examiner who concluded two separate causes of death technically that's the only