with respect to the formal yes correct but it's our position that the fifteen day clock started when she notified the carrier and person or second the powers the states fifteen days with in receipt of we have to interpret these cases in light of the insured not be in shirk some seventy eight days lapse she was not obligated to complete that form in fact they never and kept inducing the client under the impression that everything was fine it was a sworn statement given your medicals do this to you that one letter kept coming after a night or deposition yes took a deposition it took of what so reaches here is that the letters are clearly drafted in a way to prevent us from demanding perpetration they state  the outracing provisions are quite clear there's only three circumstances when you can demand arbitration american access concedes that none of those year statute of limitations but it it may have put the other legislature steps in to prevent unjustice here by enacting one forty three point one of the illinois insurance code which states that if you provide the carrier with all the information that they're looking for that gives them the opportunity to adjust the claim and then the towing provisions of the policy are that the limitations triggered tolls under the policy but last correspondence that we received from american access in november seventh stated that they were looking for an ambulance bill and their letter included what should provide this information we would be able to make a decision on this cla and we provided that into its bill and then nothing was done by american access or sad into the limitations period expired so if there was anything else that needed to be done american access needed to tell us during the limitations period based upon that last letter they were given all the information that they needed to adjust the claim and the tone provision of the illinois shura limitations period now what's important here is that they can see that there are three conditions proceedings that must it doesn't matter what the circumstances are the carrier in these substandard cases finds ways if it too looks like a catch twenty two it sounds like that's funny to watch like a catch twenty two i probably a catch twenty absolutely basically you're right absolutely and the there's a reason that the policy is drafted in the way that it is there are out sharp business people and they know that regardless of what circumstance rises they're going to have some pain or head up with respect to find some way to deny a client anything else you want to tell us about this well the other issue was that there was an affidavit that was filed with respect to the summary judgment motions that i moved to strike because it was a contradiction to judicial admission that judge hall used as the basis of her decision to frame summary judgment or the testimony given in the case was that notice was first received every second and then during the course of the summer jackson proceedings they realize that they had not sent there for hours within fifteen days of receiving notice they provided an affidavit contradict in the earlier traditional admissions which then stated or by the way we didn't first we didn't receive no so this claim until april thirteenth it was a direct contradiction of earlier vishal admissions that should've been struck the judge call states in her opinion that she didn't rely on the affidavi i'm really kind of interested in this waiver argument and that the behavior of the insurance company is such that they have a right to rely on your behavior as an indication that you will really intent upon settling this kids talk about a safe way versus i'm talking about valid reasons pacific insurance and there's a dissent in that case which cites to a lot of cases that say one of the things we have to take into consideration in this kind of case given the nature of the policy  nature of the insurer we ought to consider the possibility that you can waive the requirement that a proof of loss be filed by your behavior first of all and i'm a summary judgment motion at least i don't think they proved that there was a waiver there was a limited discussion as to what was going on whe denying the reason is the insurance company doesn't want to be you want to wrongfully deny it they're still investigating i don't understand we're not sure where you use that language and i don't think that an insurance company should is or should be prohibited from requesting additional information or them up there was nothing in the conduct of this insurance company that misled her in a way there was no offer a promise up offered there was no negotiations to lower her into a sense of security at all times we are investigating this and you see in the action and this is because there was no response from and you would say that you would argue that her sworn statement under oath does not meet the requirements of the polic i think it's important what judge hall pointed out in her decision that the policy specifically provided that knows a claim has to be in writing there is a provision on the from the policy that says if you're in an accident cause let us know about it as soon as packer bowl or as soon as possible something they're back but there's also the condition three of the policy and the act is set forth you for them page fifty two of the record condition specifically says in part in part all notices which may be required by this policy shall be in writing so it's our position now that the phone call on february second may have been sufficient duty on the insurance company to remind her that you've got to comply was with the policy term which says you gotta provide us the proof of form on the claim that we provide and the case law under the statute one forty three point one case law says you've got to provide the proof of lost in the form required by the policy and even if under these cases even if there's just a minimal difference that's been held not sufficient to toll the limitations  there is cannot be any substitute there is no substitute no we never waive that requirement ok and under the statute it has been told the the to your limitations period for filing arbitration in an uninsured motorist case or an under insured morris case has been repeatedly upheld by the courts it's not ambiguous it's not against public policy this is the policy says if the parties do not are going to you're not suggesting that because there's the way the policy is written the way the case was written you have it both ways i think the way it's written and i think the way it should be interpreted i this is just a list of the issues that are subject to arbitration and i think to hold otherwise would put an unfair burden on insurers in other cases you know they have to you know they can't request every trace in intil they prove that there is some disagreement how do they prove that i think what you're really suggesting is that if they have a lawyer the lawyer should know that there's a case out there the three the trumps the implications contained in your policy is that w no i don't think that's my position i think this is a fair interpretation that in order to read the policy you also have to read the safeway now you can just read the policy i think you can read the all this it's not just seeds and there's no case law saying it's a condition for scenes and i submit that it would do a disservice to insurance for this court to rule that it is a condition pursued and it may help her in this case but if you put that burden out insurance another case then you know it makes it harder for them to proceed to have a trace and expeditiously the point of the whole point is to actually to still allow a procedure for the people to get their claims paid without having to go through that occasion and if they had simply sent that letter demanding arbitration that's what would have happened i want to remind you that in this case particular conditions and phrases terms that we're talking about no i do not see and especially if you read in light of the case law right and i'd also like to point out that in the corp lo the defendant never raises affirmative defense that he that section one forty three point one told the limitations period so i think for that reason alone you could affirm the summary judgment that had titled race and summary judgment if they ha loss or do you disagree if you're telling us that there was information that was not that any suit against the company be filed within that same two year limitation period and this court has upheld that in the case of permits and versus country mutual such a clause acquires not only an ira trace in demand but also any suit against the company and the claim to be made or commence within the same two years addressing that condition proceeding matter again if i may just briefly calling it a condition precedent doesn't make it a condition for seaton's but even if you think those three issues working conditions proceed and the depositions of the two adjuster in those depositions they each said that american excess never agreed to the amount payable under the policy and never agreed that she was entitled to recover under the policy those were two of the three issues that the claim me as conditions proceed even if you consider those to be conditions for see didn't with those statements there was never any agreement it shows that she could have demanded arbitration in two years it is clear from this record and i don't think you deny it that you were actually investigating this matter pretty pretty investigation i'd say january twenty eighth of two thousand and eight about six days before the statute of limitations that you would simply just continue to investigate up until february of two thousand and seven they were getting pretty close to the time when they responded to a request that you had sent them sometime earlier in the or or earlier in the year expires you're off the hook you can just stop your investigations which you've been doing and they think you're investigating you  could have and they could file a lawsuit and i would remind you that we did nothing to mislead her in never said we're going to make an offer never engaged in settlement negotiations so it was it was in or in equitable can you be that you say two years after oh by the way we're not paying your claim because you didn't return a form that we didn't deny your claim when we had made in total for the two years followed up when it comes to mr thompson and the arbitration the policy is very clear it says you must be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the policy was equal to a disagreement is disingenuous and it goes to this repeated pattern throughout the course of your basically arguing that their conduct was inconsistent with an intention to enforce strict compliance with yes