facts the helen's primary argument is that the lower court area and its grant of rescission to national union section one fifty four of the insurance rescission if two elements are present if this statement was false and if it was made with the intent to deceive or materially affects the risk  addition the golden rule cases modified that and indicated that where policy contains language requiring the rich sure can be insured to respond to the best of their knowledge the burden of accuracy is lower that they were false statement but looking closely at those statements the court erred in that judgement regarding the death of this former based upon the coroner's report and the  to potential litigation finally regarding the federal court investigation no formal complaint had been filed by the dental board as of the renewal on march first two from the people that permit you to practice the history soon hey we're worried about whether or not you have the physical and mental ability to practice the industry we wonder whether it's paired you need to submit to a physical or mental resume nation you have to disclose just about everything in the world it would be very difficult to comply with it might i would concede to you that it might among among many other things might have affected his  knowledge and there was no evidence in the lower court contradicting his own testimony that he didn't possess that knowledge moving on to do the element  the best representation materials to the risk assumed section one fifty four from its revision when there is such a material representation in this case there was no affidavit from national union to indicate that the risk or the statement affected the risk that it was material in any way instead the court made what it's called common sense assumption that in this case the court certainly erred where it made a ruling that was not based on the record there was nothing to of such evidence on the record i think the court clearly erred him decision regarding that moving on to the view should of waiver in illinois state bar versus and reached a policy whereby the offer testimony that was not aware of central suit until an attorney made a request for records and that was my firm making requests for records at that time questioning his wrongdoing with regard to some of his patients and then of course they issued him an order in february of two thousand and six just a couple of weeks prior to him completing the large one two thousand six that he had been informed within five minutes of completing the procedure that she collapsed in his office you seen as answers to request with him i wish she was in her sixty's i don't remember the exact  even though we can still find as a matter of law that is false i just don't say nothing and i march one thousand six up and says i certify that i'm not aware of any of this also if you listen to the argument the plaintiffs really are not questioning any facts they're not really questioning they're not saying that way serves group that he didn't have the sense what they're really talking about is a contract interpretation they're need not accept the insureds version of their own knowledge where there is contrary evidence in this case there was no contrary evidence of his knowledge that there would be s