otherwise including one nine hundred seventy four the supreme court was confronted with the same thing three vehicles to ensure that three separate policies and on three separate declaration sheets one for each car each three sided and pays a separate premium for each does he reasonably contemplated that he quote other insurance clause they were in or affected to reduce recovery to what he would have obtained under one policy did any of those whereas in britain they were and the supreme court told us what should occur in the face of a very clear and i stacking clause however at this point i'm just explaining to the board that the be carried a counter that this was merely an expression that an additional premium was being paid for the additional risk that picked up by the get a car recorder pointed out that this could not be since there was no added risk by having a car since the that the first policy covered the insurers no matter what field or in therefore the supreme court has already ruled that the expression of coverage made by state farm to the if it is in the declaration sheets of multiple policy with one declaration she had listed both cars put in those cases the carrier while listing separate premiums for each car specifically did not miss the un the wm coverages twice once for each vehicle is again in contrast to the perfectly clear it by stacking plus by listing of piling into limits for each person it could be easily be interpreted that insured should enjoy a total of two hundred thousand dollars of coverage missionary i wanted to make the point simply that the supreme court has said the same expressions in this case to express multiple policies being a soul so the heart and soul of where we go is to the defendant's position favor of the insurer now the defendant says creasy act as an example of a situation where the supreme court said well no clear it i stay in close rescues in any other statements in the contrary expression of multiple coverages radnor for the party and then case the insured said i have taken the subject to the notion not that i'd want to go over it just because i've paid for two again and they were also referred to the make a case for support and make a case the same thing happened in making case the supreme court said you know we gotta go with the actual expressions of the parties in the contract in order to discern their already have our yuan coverage under the first policy we can only say we can only read this to mean that you're getting a second level of indemnity coverage and that's what they said there but it didn't seem to dove justice hudson's point the the the distinction here and also to justice work at the distinction here is is that there is a explicit proclamation that for each vehicle  amount state farm says the feds lose the benefit of the full five hundred thousand dollars they purchased of course if the memphis had purchased the precise same amount of coverage in a one single policy they would receive the full benefit of their thousand dollars of the counterpart coverage for us so using basic statutory interpretation what is it that willful supposed to do for sure and the answer is consider the legislative intent and the purpose of the statu differentiating coverage purchased by using one policy with coverage purchased by using multiple policies rather the legislative history speaks to the opposite mr murthy associate counsel to state farm sa the illinois legislature in section one forty three the two have made him specifically provided in subsection four that you can have inside subsection five and you can you can't you can't treat one party is more important than the other you have to read the policy and still tell it in when you read the policy in its totality you'll see this specifically says if more than one policy applies we are allowed to however the fact that you have a stake in provision envisions by its terms that there would be other insurance even issued by this company and says just ignore that is in conflict with the fact that in a completely plus be used to help out whenever the coverage is not repeated for each vehicle either in one single declaration chief on multiple as far as