quote my prepared statements will be very brief i think that we've laid out a great deal of arguments in the briefs and i think we've covered just about everything i expect love questions and so  the main point that i would want to make today is that the central legal proposition before we get to the two point test in the language of exclusion the facts of the case is that the court should not construe a contract in a manner which leads to an absurd result and that's exactly what the circuit court did in this case you read the circuit court's opinion in fact you read mr transit spreed in this case what leaps out at me from both of those is the absence of any kind of rationale for the result that was really it's just here's the two part test mr stearns a cause alphabetic he didn't have a profit motive and therefore his homeowner completely different set of facts in that case the question was skull was it within the scope of his little condominium rental business or was it off on a personal issue and the court held in that case that the argument that resulted in the fist fight at least had something to do with his election rent from his tenants he actually got in the argument with somebody else crossed the hall but  that's a closer case in this case there is absolutely no question of scope a good half of this court's cases regarding the business pursuits exclusion concern scope is the insured with enough i think the underlying  basic underlying concerns is to take the hobbyist out of the picture right and at what point does it become a hobby if he  to take that person on of the category of business profession our occupation or is there more on the other hand if you work for a dollar a year  village of crestwood he's getting six thousand dollars a year ok we can focus on the fact that he gets the six thousand dollars a year is that a meaningful profit if it's a full time preoccupation and i don't the risk that is being undertaken by this policy the nature of the risk seems to be an important factor and doesn't seem to be getting the attention that at least in my touched upon in any of the briefs including your fifty page plus brief and i say plus because of the transparent use of constant footnotes to exceed the fifty page limit which we all find offensive  and you know we think that people should be honest if they're going to write more than fifty pages but be that as it may not addressed in either of the briefs is the issue of how if at all the fact that being in that position as mere could be beneficial in the business pursuit beyond the profit there but for example in other  other kind of ancillary benefit but and how does that play well i certainly think that's a possibility that would have involved by the discovery and probably a very uncertain answer at the end of the discovery whether it helped his trucking business or not but i think that it's a lot cleaner than that because the profit test the so called price of the occupation doesn't quite right it can be where the case i mean that's your first loaded in that case so apparently it was answering your threshold question at least apparently that was enough of a threshold i think a better illustration of the threshold issue is the better mutual versus austria case where the boat mechanic was getting paid seventy cases have involved businesses i mean after all airplanes are people who work for a business to do that or the government or nonprofit or something but almost everyone works for a business and so the question when it's a business or when it's allegedly a occupation or do are we limited by the provision that says heck doesn't cover x in stepping on your business premises and we did not cover any liability or claims connected with your business profession or occupation right those terms are engineer who caused the train wreck and the court said he's driving a train for the train company that's all we really need to know he didn't say anything about whether he really wanted to be an engineer or how much he was paid or what he did with the whether you know whether it's the homeowners would apply or what you call a homeowner's policy right by him in those circumstances not whether they happen as an entity to cover that through some commercial issues that there's he's an accident in the parking that's what the four markovic case addresses directly was the primary case that my opponent relies upon that was the limousine driver case when he dropped off his last fare and went to dinner then went home and had the accident during that and this was covered by his been covered by the commercial policy and not by a long trip but that case this is the queen held that even though he's driving the same limo he's using good for private matters like the mayor w like this is something the something the complaint alleges what what occurred here and then sail contaminated water to residents who subsequently died some were seriously injured and then there were other injuries for example i'm not sure it makes a difference but do we know whether is activity was with whether he was took an active or totally smith versus usa from california where it was undisputed the testimony was undisputed that the outside director received no salary whatsoever so he's got a transit beat there and it was undisputed that he acted as a director solely as a favor to a friend and so there you know you've got a much clearer and better case and again just like the locomotive engineer case a california appellate court said you know we really don't care which motivations are you're sitting on a board that runs a business and that's really all we need to know and that's really the essence of my argument here is that the court doesn't need to examine either profit or profit motivation and i draw the distinction oh well i was i was talking more of the front end where the insurer decides whether it is a big one to make a claim on his homeowner's policy much less whether a lawsuit is going to be brought much less whether an appeal is going to be brought the results in a published opinion there innumerable people who are sued along with their employer strax squarely within the scope of their employment and never even occurs to them to make a claim on their home response if they are dead then you have many many many to impose the business exclusion forget about being a mayor being an occupation our profession because that i think is not at all in to with to for any citizen with any degree of education or preparedness is it really viscerally appropriate to call this guy to call this a profession and more so to call it an occupation well  marine one twenty nine million dollars playing slots and las vegas and he told the reporter that despite his newfound wealth he intended to honor his commitment to the military and service which because the marines had made him a man that showed him  and that particular passion myself i don't know that but the case law that we have says to be a business you know it has to have passed be for profit so there has to be some money or some subject to the business exclusion or not since he is donating our his time it's an honorary position well even if he citizens of the community but if he's not getting money case law says he's not in business for purposes of the exclusion and well he left to trying to convince us that even if it's not a business it's a profession even though this guy never took a course in political science school never train of thought never had any elective experience you know he maybe you know  business or not you have to show that there is a profit in all these cases where profit is discussed it's in the case of a usually an individual who is you know money is changing hands but it's a question of it could be a hobby or something if  he was constrained because there was an affidavit filed by strand six white that said that he does get paid between one thousand and six thousand a year but she  with this fact that he gave this money back so therefore he wasn't involved or a profit motive and therefore it's not clear that wife of the employed says he gave the money back we're not a business we're not involved in accusation we're not this is not a profession of any kind no no cases that specifically the but the test is the profit motive this probably assisted him greatly in his trucking business while he was mayor and c f o or whatever of both trucking companies what about them are we we can only address that which is in the record the record there's no question was receiving money every single year and he actually was using some of that money to defray some of his expenses with the village that's right you know that's a record we agree with deborah and bad i think is the not the sale of contaminated water by the village of crestwood to residents who were subsequently injured some by death some person serious serious injuries isn't that the nub of this is that what he was doing had nothing to do with his policy his owners or whatever you're calling this what it had to do with was his activities as the mayor of christie your honor i disagree with your characterization and here's why first of all this insist throughout your brief saying it happens anywhere in the world music quote it really is about the definition of that exclusion would countless of back and let me call posit the question that if someone had a full time i believe that the answer to that question is that they would be covered the exclusion would not apply and here's why the case law in this state is very well established over a period of more than thirty general defeats language of the policy that is none specific asked to that particular your honor there is no evidence in this record about what was taken into account in underwriting this policy or not underwriting this policy that's not the question but this is actual question pertaining to this these this specific policy it's a question contained it's a that's that's a constant theme of your brief and in your revisit this argument for very understandable and good reasons but as as is i look at it as basically in his argument today courts decide what is in front of them and can you point to a case that has been decided in this jurisdiction that really allows something like this to be claimed under a business exclusion policy because you're obviously a very fine lawyer and there are other fine more is working with you on this case and it is a policy that sitting out there there is a we know from the record that well won't make a difference in how we decide the case of fear has been a decision at least that case similar to this before and if it hasn't then maybe the construct that comes through in the business exclusion policy has been simply addressing the circumstances presented to yes and hasn't ever reached this type of fish your honor it's a fair thing the answer to that question is that there's first sight cases but over a long period of time the principles in which the cases are decided are tested in many different variations and you see them here from the national guardsman case to the babysitter then what we're doing is you're in grafting his motivation in taking the responsibility for acting on behalf of the municipality as paramount to the fact that what he was doing was actually trying to act for the  so what you would be doing is in grafting an additional layer of liability to his personal line of insurance if he should decide to be public spirited either for me miss a pal of yours not for profit corporation and act  with this court has decided to focus on any issue profit motivation and that is the test now there are many other tests they could be chosen and there are many other exclusions to be written for instance if the is that if the if the issues seem to tilt in a certain iraq of the court will go a long way towards satisfying vet bills even though the standards are criteria the criteria are up formally spelled out in a different manner translated means suddenly if we find a mayor saying every single year for how many years twenty eight i don't remember the number of course but your honor he did but he did it is answered very clearly by the fact that he gave it back that is the if there is no profit motivation in what he is doing then according to the terms of the policy and the courts cases then it is covered is just not clearly and without a doubt excluded i would that would whether this was a personal pursuit or whether this was a business pursuit are are you telling us to put our lines or sun and ignore that the allegations in the complaint relate to the sale of contaminated water by the village press where he's being he's being tagged with the villages sale of contaminated water how do we do we know what that into this case or are we going to remove that and say this doesn't you know i think those i'm talking about a separate portion of analyzing this and that is the activity involved are should we just ignore it in in industrial they talk about the number of cases they talk about the barcode chin acus case stinnett corey and that the thread running through all of them was there is a genius measuring stick for much of what the construct of business tell us the question is whether to a lo way so to speak the loop hole created by that formalized definition to embrace functions that are clearly not those homeowners insured not the i'm sure boss is the rule backed fixed and formulated or should we struggle here to expand that definition not t policy exclusion as meaning that there were activity in a commercial enterprise or a municipal enterprise would be covered with that be the guy post that weren't able to use i i think a reasonable person could well thing but this policy covered him given that all those things they're saying the policy besides the schools and we know that a policy has to be interpreted as a whole in this policy by saying village had its own public entity policy that would have covered them but for the fact that this was an intentional act or something of that nature  making a specific exclusion just as they get in connection with the malpractise doctors without borders and hypothetical he suggested just for it the insurance side didn't want to carry the burden  and i'm glad you asked the question about the reasonable person standard because i think that really sort of crystallizes everything if we were to walk out on michigan avenue and ask a hundred people based on the description of what this transit dish may or may not be the best choice to sell street but i think that's definitely presently a public that's a discredit what he did and asked them is it's his job as mayor an occupation i doubt we'd get a single negative response and i think that's exactly the way the court should approach the issue it doesn't even need to reach the so called prophet standard the second point i want to make is that i want to draw a distinction here between all of the fallen here identifying self by thirty the activities that he conducts as a volunteer even though it's on a regular basis he saw and involving substantial expenditures of time and effort he's not a volunteer if you claims he claims to be a volunteer but he was paid a salary he was th salary some of it he used to reimburse himself on the other hand he has to make a definition for purposes of a policy that seems to cover all the risk and any time you try to do that you'll miss some the nature of political office has not changed in that respect one hundred thirty years of public office is still an occupation the plain an ordinary meaning of the term as it was used their  speculation with me that he doesn't spend full time that they didn't go back and get on the street as you indicated and i know you run them palin that case ten or fifteen times a year he delivered a boat down to the harbor could have taken more than an hour or so  it's the nature of the six thousand dollars lends itself only the covering expenses and that's left over when he's a businessman is a giving some charity all  issue there if there is a threshold issue here then clearly he has succeeded i mean six thousand dollars is a lot more than seventy five dollars three dollars an hour but the one point i want to make that he get a chance to before so the distinction between profit and profit motive surely if we show that there's a profit a guaranteed profit in the form of a salary surely we don't have to show that there's a motive oppa the courts develop a reference to a profit motive where  the fact is he was the mayor it was paid it was not a nominal amount of money he did what he wanted with the money including some of it he took out of a sweat off it and put it in the right pocket and call that being reimbursed for his expenses which he would not otherwise have an option to be reimbursed for so if the court is going to apply that test as my point to suggest the question is have they met that test here i mean basically what they're saying is he made a donation to charity which was less than his salary and therefore he is a volunteer well i mean that's true practically every i mean if that's if that clears the hurdle that the the concept of business and if we look at that rationale it's not the one dollar being a profit that makes that determination it's definitely be a involved if that's going to be a meaningful factor in determining what a business is are you are we going to come out and say well he got off hundred dollars for the job you know therefore he's in business  dollars it right time one hundred dollars this is basically enough to buy a cup with suppliers or are we going to look to see whether it's a significant but even if it's less than zero even if it's a loss that's where the term motivation came into the host because it doesn't military force right it doesn't make any difference to the insurance company whether we're ensuring a profitable business or a losing business it's the same