marie fry was a passenger on a vehicle that was involved in an accident that was a hit and run on may fourteenth two thousand and twelve on the car was being driven by a kenneth reed kenneth reno unbeknownst to marie frye had apparently did not have a  expired on the fourth twelve twelve which for twelve was his birthday like most people's license expired and he had renewed it may fifteenth the day after the accident obviously i'm guessing right realizing that it is his license that expired when the accident happened  foul of the territory judgment in this case on your exclusion number sixteen on page thirteen of the policy which says if the driver use the covered vehicle without a reasonable belief that he or she was entitle to do so the reason that this case is different from all other cases is because in the founders vs nino's case the eleanor supreme court said that the reasonable belief exclusion as to the driver was not ambiguous and to not contravene public policy what they said in that case though was that we need not speculate as to the myriad of other factual scenarios to which the reasonable belief exclusion might apply well this particular case is one of those other myriad factual scenarios the only supreme court  not decide this issue and founders versus you know those that dealt with a driver not a passenger in the state of illinois has a comprehensive mandatory insurance scheme under six twenty five  seven three one seven call the on the disk was and two fifteen i o c s five one forty three thirteen a and in the progressive vs liberty mutual case the court said that the principal purpose of the state's mandatory liability insurance requirement is to protect the public by securing the payment of their damages they also said in that case that insurers may legitimately limit their risks my argument today is that by what the safe i was trying to do in this case is not an insurer that's legitimately limiting the risks and american access versus reyes case the only supreme court in two thousand and thirteen said that you cannot issue an insurance policy to someone who is the owner of the applicant and then exclude that person they said that contravenes public policy the circumstances in this case are even more egregious and also by a public policy who you continue to  the scheme exists such that there is mandatory insurance and secure payment of the damages of the people they were noisy supreme court in the american access versus re ask has case said you cannot do what they were trying to do in that case which is to sho be case on the fifth district said that a passenger has standing to bring it to clear a toy judgement action in that particular case the court said there are far too many instances we can call to mind which a passenger may not have his own policy to look through for recovery many people in our state minors elderly persons and people who rely on mass transportation do not own automobiles and must not have their own insurance policy when a passenger enters an automobile he should relist believe he is covered by the owner's policy safe autos policy in this case and the provision would eliminate uninsured motorist coverage for people innocent passengers when the driver unbeknownst to them does not that case is that you're the one who's driving you're the one who knows or should know that you don't have a license it's reasonable and not against public policy to her bad against somebody that is much different situation and that and it happened in this case where you are a passenger what are you supposed to do are you supposed to get into a car and say excuse me mr driver do you have your driver's license on your may i look at it may i go to the secretary of state's office to point abstract to see if it's valid there's no simply no way that a passenger would be able to do that to ensure that the driver has a license to know that their cover and i've given the example that they talked about i'm in row what if you have a child what if you have somebody who is under the age of eighteen who was a passenger in her dad's car and unbeknownst to her she's six years old the father lost his license expired three weeks ago under the say photos policy and under this case if the trial court is upheld that's minor six year old girl would not have  it is it is it is different because in this case the injured person is an innocent passenger the drivers of those other i didn't know because because during the war should have known that their my son's was not valid no i'm talking about the drivers themselves against their insurance company in the insurance company said to those drivers at the anybody else you didn't hear a valid license therefore you could not reasonably presents the rocks are unusual versus economy fire case which was talked about in the police brief apel of what they call a name drive or exclusion indorsement and that particular scenario you have somebody who issues appear in that particular case it was parents and their does their son was a named exclusion on the policy the court said in that case that was all right but they also said at the end of that case is that the instant case is also distinguish case where a passenger on an insured vehicle who is neither the policyholder nor named insured seeks to recover that under that vehicles uninsured motorist coverage for injuries sustained in an accident with a different uninsured vehicle such an instance is specifically contracted for and standard insurance policies that's exactly what happened in this case because kenneth readonly five got into an accident with a hidden run driver a different uninsured vehicle so even though of the  police is relying on this rock for a case the language at the end of that case actually is for the appellant because it says that it's a different scenario when the people get involved in an accident with a different uninsured vehicle and at such an instance is contracted for on a standard insurance policies basically if you have say photos reading in this case any passenger or if the driver unbeknownst to them does not have a license suspended revoked it was expired whatever the reason may be is not going to be covered if they're involved with a hit and run driver or somebody that doesn't have insurance and that it is directly contravene public policy because of the comprehensive mandatory insurance scheme the simply puts an undue burden on a passenger to determine which is impossible for them to do whether or not the driver has a license you have so many scenarios where you have the elderly or you have a minor or you have somebody going into a taxicab there's simply no way for a passenger to deter ermine definitively whether or not a driver has a license that's not even including an emergency such an area what happens if you know you have a husband who's taking your wife who's pregnant to the hospital because she's having a baby and his license expired three days before and they get into an accident with an uninsured driver so my question really to the op believe is how does this not violate public policy there's simply no answer to that question because if you allow this provision to stand then the all these people that are innocent passengers are simply not going to have a remedy when they get into an accident with an uninsured driver there's really no answer to that question the appellate court in the american access versus the they s case also said that it violated public policy now the trial court in this particular case that we're here appellate court in this case that it's a violation of public policy to hold a safe auto policy provision that basically says clues an entire class of innocent people for something that they have no control knowledge o would be impossible for them to determine whether the driver of the car that they are in has a license and that includes again elderly people minors people who rely on mass transportation what's safe auto is trying to do is illegitimately limit their risk which would be yellen my supreme court found in the in the american access versus reyes case i'm happy to answer any more questions you have i think that that everyone understands the not against public policy where what or is it to induce lucian or passengers where the driver's license i would say the supreme court of illinois in the founders case did they say that specifically no your honor i'm not saying that i am saying though that if you look at the language of the court employed it is broad enough to encompass the passengers and intended to it says permissive users the court had already decided just a few months previously right when they say this is a narrow issue that we're dealing with now i don't expect we agree that that was how they friend that i think they looked at drivers and permissive users and permissive users was already stated by the court just two months previously to include passengers and i think they had to have that in mind when making this decision and i think the decision is not overly broad there are a number of instances in exclusion supreme court or in other decisions that would impact passengers in the same manner as this exclusion according to the plaintiff would impact passengers as well if the name of the driver exclusion for instance the council had made it a point that while nobody goes into the normal beyond say to the driver are you my since no one goes into that i'm going to be unsafe is your insurance up to date have you paid your premium but there are instances where people will get into those vehicles and the driver is not standard is a person license or isn't ok and so the person is not injured is to the driver or to anybody who's in there as to whether there is coverage afforded under the policy for the fact that the driver did otherwise yes this is consistent because there are cases such as the rocker case where the passenger is the the driver was a named driver who had been excluded under the policy the passenger distinguishing her from others that may have coverage because of their own m o b m for instance i have a policy and if i get into an on the deal with my brother and then we're in an accident he doesn't have coverage but i do then  could seek recourse through my policy council says well but marie fried doesn't have a policy she's has no recourse well it but you know you've got all state other carriers coming in finally driver who could not reasonably be expected to be right but in that instance the tortfeasor i'm sorry the tort victim had no recovery from founders now in situations where the other party has coverage it did not limit it in that regard in facts of the opposite side while there are instances where there is no opportunity for recovery and we we understand that well if you're asking me did they do a net actuarial analysis of the excess possibility of uninsured motorist and therefore pricing their uninsured motorist coverage i'm i'm certain that they must have  but they also included sixteen x and more than that i can't remember but at least number sixteen exclusion into their policy with an actuarial calculation i'm certain as to whether these exclusions would be applied in their for their premiums calculated accordingly i don't know i've never inquired of safe auto as to that circumstance but it would stand to reason that if they're going to calculate their premiums based upon the  likelihood of uninsured motorist claims and they also calculate their premiums in accordance to their exclusions and the application of those exclusions right so just to clarify there are no reported illinois the circuit court found different than the circuit court in my case that they did not appeal that issue what was on appeal was an issue regarding section one fifty five so i will advise the court i am aware that this i know of no other and i don't think that it's noteworthy in the sense that it's not published and that the issue itself that we're to addressing today is not really in the appeal  language approved by the court in the founders case it looked at the language of the founders policy and the safeway policy and other than the prefix to the exclusion are says if th upside down the court was saying that you cannot exclude on a discriminatory basis between the category of occupant of the car which is a lot different than a public policy of saying we want our occupancy vehicles to be covered by insurance and if an insurance policy is required it has to include coverage of permitted users drivers and i keep things to to say that the driver and that's what the language in this policy says the house he does not apply if the driver so you  the use of the word driver in the exclusion is simply a predicate to the exclusion of other words that the driver does not desire have a reasonable belief that he's permitted to use the vehicle the exclusion  against all four policy parts including the third part which is the uninsured motorists policy that raises another question that the term reasonable belief is usually a fact question is is did this come up at all in the trial yet whether that mr reid had a reasonable belief because it seems to me on its face that he gets in an accident today and tomorrow or the next day his lacings was reinstated that does not indicate to considered in the circuit court the issue was are we what is our standard in illinois does it include an object or a subjective analysis what did he know and why was he unable to operate a vehicle or didn't have a license there or is it a bright line test it's i believe clear that no more oil we just threw out the subjective aspect of it and went with the objective that idea is i think we covered most of what i have to say in regards to prepare remarks i do want to address what i think is a key point that the court is focusing on and that is is any limitation of coverage per se violation of public policy and i and that it is clear from my reading of the case that they say no within limitations acceptable to the court there are exclusions that are not against public policy the name driver exclusion has been approved by the supreme court the food delivery exclusion and the reason exclusion of all been approved by the supreme court of illinois your application into whether an individual is covered or not is based upon approved exclusions if if kenneth reed was delivering pizza while marie fry was a passenger in his vehicle the exclusion of applaud what applied marie frog if he was if she was a passenger such as in rockford case of a named next named excluded driver she would not have the opportunity for recovery the fact that she does not have her own policy is would be you're going to look to protect those individuals you would be carving out a niche different from the language of the exclusion itself you would be rewriting the exclusion in such a manner that  would be protecting only a narrow class of individuals that i don't think would be appropriate under the circumstances exclusion has been approved as essentially written i think it's from our viewpoint situation in a very narrow category they didn't they dealt with driver's right but they did not limit it to the drive because they said we're dealing with th a narrow issue and then they said drivers who are not licensed to drive can they reasonably expect to be insured paraphrasing but they they used the term narrow if they were broaden expansive you might have an argument from my perspective but to to morph dealing with a driver who was on license in a plane they had reasonable expectation of insurability to the driver and then saying that's not reasonable and therefore anybody else in the car who doesn't know about it is also has it now it's imputed to them really seems like a major leap i'm not maybe i'm being misunderstood i'm not saying that that person should have the knowledge of human to them i'm saying that the exclusion applies in the circumstance such as this where the driver is not license it would apply to the passenger as it does to the driver it would apply if mary frye was a pedestrian on the roadway and has read struc and caused injury to her that she would be no different situation than she is today in a liability situation the exclusion would apply there's no question in that regard it applies if it if to say it the decision i think what is supports the viewpoint that it is a political in this instance as it would be in the liability instance the situation as it would apply to the otherwise uninsured individual marie fry as if that's true and is no different than her situation now as a passenger provision as you would for the liability provisions why would why is there a distinction between the two the issue is the same the exclusion deals with the license up of or the right to drive a mystery why is it different in the liability position than it is in the uninsured motorist its impact to the other it individual would be the same and can't speak for him but as far as the application of the exclusion it certainly would apply and the liability situation certainly would apply to an individual who has no other recourse and ali situation the way the policy is written it is written to apply to the uninsured motorist portion of the coverage it would have the same impact i don't know that i'm not sure the page or on are but it does say we also need not speculate as to the myriad of other thoughtful scenarios to which the exclusion might apply the issue before us is much narrower the issue is whether as a matter of was a person without a valid driver's  a reasonable belief that he or she is entitled to drive that the exclusion could conceivably apply to other factual circumstances does not mean that the exclusion is ambiguous as to on license drivers they did say in founders vs new knows that it was very narrowed to whether or not there was a driver i know there was some discussion about mr reed and what he knew or didn't know my understanding of founders versus menorahs is that it's irrelevant whether mr reed at the time of the accident knew or didn't know without his knowledge it's an objective standard basically a hardline rule that if you didn't have a license then it's an objective and as to the driver or they were going to have a reasonable belief they didn't really specifically address the issue whether or not for sad example somebody is somebody moved in their license expired and they didn't know it in the notices from the secretary of state they didn't receive them by the mail but my understanding and reading and you know this is that it's an objective standard as to the driver but they specifically said that some narrow issue and then one addressing some of the other issues and the other issue is the one that we're here for today and say final is promising is just print from the policies in that one because it says that it excludes categories it just the driver didn't have a reasonable belief because their license was expired or suspended or whatever i would say that there's no way that safe auto could have included that in the premium calculation because there's no alimony case that has ever held that before so they would have had no reason to include that in their premium calculation when they did it because that wasn't the law so we thought i was trying to make law by this particular case and i think the trial court made a mistake by overextending them you know it's case what's a father was trying to do here is do an illegitimate limit of their risk and it's clearly contravenes public policy for the same reason that you know that you just simply what are people supposed to have supposed to buy insurance as a passenger people can buy insurance if they're not onerous policy but a lot of the reason that people are passengers they can't afford insurance and that was discussed in the monroe case that i read your honour's so basically what's a father was trying to do here is create a separate class of people that were going to have to buy insurance if they're a passenger in a vehicle that a driver doesn't have a license for whatever reason well a lot of people cannot afford insurance even when they have a car it's certainly  seven three seventeen which is called the omnibus clause as well as two fifteen i o c s five one forty three point one three a which talks about the uninsured motorist coverage should apply to the same thing as liability coverage  cannot exclude passengers because the driver doesn't have a reasonable belief because it's never come up before just like in the american access versus race case when the appellate court or the illinois supreme court said that you can't have an exclusion nine southern second ten forty one this is louisiana from one thousand nine hundred nine the highest court in that state moving passengers were covered under a driver's policy even when the driver's license had expire provides a mandatory comprehensive scheme for the protection of the public from damage caused by motor vehicles the court reason of denying coverage based on an invalid license of a permissive driver puts an undue burden on the named insured to determine whether the prospective i'm actually not sure how many states follow this i know that in the north can access persons re as case the illinois supreme court cited a different louisiana case which was i believe the williams vs us agencies so even the illinois supreme court looked in that circumstance for our other jurisdictions that had a similar issue and this one is exactly with the adams versus thomas case that we're here for today basically you're going to make people buy passenger insurance if you have hold this sa autos provision in the policy and it contravenes public policy because the general mandatory insurance scheme there is no specific law that says you can't do this that's what the courts determination as to what's public policy and what's not public policy there are some cases where the court has said this is against public policy there are some cases that they said this is ok you can sue these kind in this particular case with say father was trying to do is an illegitimate and overreach and extension and because of that i would ask you to reverse the circuit court orders of september sixteenth two thousand and thirteen that granted say far as a motion for summary judgment i would also ask you to reverse the court's trial court's order of may seventh two thousand and fourteen which denied the defendant a power and a motion to reconsider this issue i would say that any issue like this on like the founders versus nino's case or iraq for case of american access versus radius case is always a situation where that the legislature once they could address an issue the legislature now annoys seems to be busy with a million other things right now i don't think they're focusing on this issue and it's basically for the courts to determine in some circumstances they have in some circumstance they haven't whether or not a