as this court has held for many years in many cases a court's primary objective is to give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement well that's not what happened here your honour's what was the intent behind the insurance policy at issue well the policy under consideration is an automobile policy show than elmore the father of kent purchased an automobile policy from state farm and it covered a for truck so like every other auto policy that's involved the carrier is going to want to know who's the resident drivers at the home how many miles typically the drivers will will drive going to year go through all of these things and underwriting then issue a policy to cover a specific vehicle because as we know one illinois insurance follows the vehicle and that's what was done excuse me so show no more pay premiums for this policy and state farm issued a policy and accepted premiums to insure a ford truck and that's the coverage was issued for a ford truck that's that's what was given to him and that's what he paid premiums for so  but what this what happened in this tragic accident was an incident with a farm implement the complaint is located in the record at c two hundred and fifteen that's where the complaints located that all the allegations of negligence there the negligence that's alleged against sheldon elmore has absolutely nothing to do with the truck the insured vehicle the allegations have to do with the green order which caused the accident what was alleged in the complaint was that sheldon had turned down the order without warning can't remove the shield from the auger failed to warn that the shield had been removed and failed to equip the auger with an appropriate shield these are all allegations of negligence in maintenance or modification of a farm implement nothing to do with a motor vehicle you know the green order is a specialized  piece of farm equipment i know a number of the court is familiar with farming there's some photos i'm going to mention later on in the argument but basically what the what the auger is is along to has a  spiral screw in the tube it is designed to move grain from one elevation to another typically the grain will be moved into a grain bin and this instance it was moving into a transport truck but that's basically what the the only thing that the great order will do again it's a specialized piece of farming equipment and that's that's how the action occurred because there was no guarding on the chute at the bottom of the of the crane order the fundamental error that the appellate court did in this case around or is basically transformed in all policy into a farm liability policy the state foreign policy issue which again is an automobile policy was never meant to cover this type of an accident the policy contained exclusions the key exclusion that's at issue here today is the mechanical device exclusion and that is found out in the record at c one  said well you know that would be an absurd result to say there's no coverage here because this truck was involved in the farm operation it was unloading grain unloading is something that the truck will do you know to enforce this exclusion and they also say it was too broad well that would that would mean that the only way there would be coverage here would be if you're going to unload the grain with a hand truck or a wheelbarrow so right right it's other than a hand truck basically a hand truck is something it's been interpreted by other courts i don't think it's been interpreted illinois but basically it's something that's not the mechanical device would be like a wheelbarrow something that's done manually  it would be a small contrivance that does not involve the machinery does not in one corner distinguish their hand truck from a pallet jack because the pallet jack could handle up to about five thousand pounds and had a cylinder so it's something that's basically can be sort of manhandled by a farm worker or anyone really that handles a wheel barrel something that is is not a not so much a machine it's not powered by any source it's powered by an individual respect to the appellate court your honour's there's nothing absurd about having different insurance policies covering different risks because that's kind of how insurance operates most people that have a home they have home talking about liability coverage so that would cover for if someone had a slip and fall maybe fell off a ladder someone had a dog the dog hit somebody they brought a liability claim that's a homeowner's policy automobile policy someone's driving their car and everyone  they have auto coverage if you go through a stop sign you heard somebody there's going to be coverage for an automobile policy there's also something called a farm liability policy that covers farm accidents and it covers farm equipment such as a combine tractor a grain auger or a brush are these are all sort of mutually exclusive coverage is by the way your honour's in your homeowner's policy that's not going to cover if you had an auto accident if an auto accident occurred there's not going to be coverage under the homeowner's policy because they're different policies insuring different risks just like here in this situation if you have a motor vehicle designed to be operating on roads is required to be a license on the motor vehicle code a farm implement is not covered by a motor vehicle on all policy for example a combine that's not covered under an auto policy attractor is not covered under an auto policy those items would be covered under the farm liability policy that's what the farm liability policy is designed to do just as the truck if there is a accident with this insured for a truck that would be covered under the farm liability policy again different policies cover different risks that doesn't mean it's an absurd result to say there's no coverage for this accident with this grain auger me that was negligent allegedly negligently maintain because the screen was off that doesn't mean that because there's no coverage on an auto policy that's an absurd result the result is that is just that's the wrong policy for this particular accident because the action involves a farm implement and that's that's just the fact that of what happened here your hono so we come to the mechanical device exclusion in this issue of ambiguity this is as far as i can tell and counsel can tell i think would probably agree with me this is a case of st impression in illinois  overstreet found language on ambiguous and precluded coverage as well but the th district distinguish those cases and the basis of the distinguishing the cases was that the court said well these other cases featured self powered or motorized devices like a forklift a front loader so those are different where we have here that you know this this crane auger that's not so powered or not motorized so those cases don't apply here this is something that you know you have to have a p t o chef to operate the green auger well that's an again all due respect to the appellate court that's another error here your honour's the error is that the appellate court is requiring the self powered language to apply if the exclusions going to apply there's no self powered requirement in the state farm policy the policy doesn't say that the mechanical device has to be self powered or power under its own power that's not there all it dictionary and some other foreign authority has done the same thing and we cited that in the brief but mechanical means related to machinery or tools devise means it's a piece of equipment designed to serve a special purpose and i mentioned before that there are some photographs of if the courts if any of the justices are interested in looking at this if you're not familiar with a lot of agricultural equipment these were taken from kent elmore's deposition in the underlying case and so you got a picture of the green are these are these are exemplary as they're not the exact equipment involved but they're very similar so this is a fifty four dollars in the record it shows the the auger it's a long tube again it moves the grain from a lower level to a higher level typically going into the grain been another example kind of shows sort of how the action would have happened here is the chute at the bottom with the auger you can kind of see the screw blade at the bottom there that moves the screw operates it's powered by the p t o chef from the tractor that operates the screw the crane comes in from the from the truck the gate is open the grain comes down goes into the chute up the auger and then the positive it into the transport truck and then they're going to take it off to the grain elevator in town and that said he is sixty two dollars i take a look at that photo and then another one that shows the equipment here this is a east sixty one again you have how come here i mean the back in the gate of the truck grain would come out again you could see the mechanism involved there so again these are these are photographs examplar photographs that kind of show what what this is so you know the question is is the is the grain auger a mechanical device or is it not a mechanical device well what would a reasonable person believe well we know one thing it's i think we can agree it says it's a specialized piece of equipment to be used on a farm it's it's a device it's used to serve a specific purpose a special purpose and that's to move grain that's the only purpose of the of the order is it mechanical well it powered by p t o shelf from from a tractor and again it's there's a lot of torque involved a lot of power from the tractor they tried to screw and when the screw drives the grain is placed in the bottom of the order those goes up so it's definitely mc i would say it's definitely mechanical it's a mechanical device that's used on a farm ok and again we get to in this case your honor is a negligent maintenance of some farm equipment as the cause of this tragic specific purpose just as overstreet mentioned in his dissent maybe grab surveys and i think that this really does violate freedom of contract the coverage was basically reformed here by the appellate court again we go from a motor vehicle policy for a truck to applying liability coverage from their policy on to a farm implement ok again when we talk about auto policy well you know you're  one premium if you're driving a two thousand to four truck it will be another premium a different frame if it's some kind of a sports car if you've got teenage kids living at your house all this comes into the into play because the coverage that's issued for motor vehicle is specific to that particular motor vehicle that's what's being insured if the vehicles ten years old the collision come which is going to be less expensive than a brand new car for example all these factors go into the premium that the insured pays when they buy motor vehicle coverage because again the coverage is specific to the vehicle it's its auto coverage and it's heavily regulated there's plenty of cases here in illinois on that it is not from liability coverage and auto auto policy covers an automobile it doesn't cover farm implements but that's what the th district did they transferred the coverage from the auto policy on to basically making it up from liability policy they said  you know the exclusion here well it's broadly worded you know that's it's way too broadly worded it can't be enforceable but the point i'm trying to make your honour's is that adult carriers have a right to restrict the coverage to what's insured and what is insured is the motor vehicle auto carrier is not insuring a tractor it's not insuring a combine it's not concrete insuring a brush tague that's why the policy says says that's why there's a mechanical device exclusion the separate exclusion about equipment being separate exclusion for farm implements because again it's not a policy it's not a farm liability policy it's not a comprehensive general liability policy either that has the really broad coverage so really here is a violation of freedom of contract because the premiums that were charged to show the no more were for the truck they were premiums to cover all of his farm equipment so there's no other questions i would just ask the court to reverse the appellate court and affirm the trial court thank you may please the court counsel my name is chris custer and along with my co counsel caraway i have the privilege we have the privilege of representing and elmore in this  and it's a privilege and honor for all of us to be in front of you this morning counsel suggests in his brief and argument that there is no coverage because it's just a car policy just like a homeowner's policy does not cover of vehicle event the rod council suggests that the elmore policy in this case does not cover farm accidents involving loading and unloading and praying to the contrary my client is not attempting to procure homeowner's coverage through a vehicle policy we are not trying to jam a square peg in a round hole it's not necessary in this case it's not necessary in this case and here's why we all know that when we try to determine the intention of parties to a contract this is just an insurance contract we look at the terms of the policy so what are the terms of this policy is there liability coverage for a farm accident arising out of the loading unloading of corn in this covered vehicle we look at the declarations page st of all the very st page of an insurance policy a lot of good information there in that particular declaration page that policy it says we are insuring this international  this is not a random auto policy where this covering the family minivan it's insuring a grain international truck and beyond that and as further evidence that there is indeed coverage in this particular case we look at the declarations and the endorsements on the policy which are listed at the bottom of that declaration page which is a part of the policy shell that elmore negotiated and paid for those endorsements at the bottom of that declaration page on page one hundred and forty eight dollars of the record there's endorsement six thousand and eighteen g g that was added to include commercial vehicle coverage if you also look at the bottom of that declaration page sheldon elmore paid for negotiated and received under this contract endorsement six thousand and fifty five z z z and on the declaration of p it says these words farm truck farm use so these items were specifically added to this policy these endorsements become part of the policy and that's how we determine that what was the intention of the parties to this contract clearly we're talking about moving grain we're talking about grain trucks and farm farming operation saying this was a farm this was an auto policy but as this court is well aware similar to what you did in the shelter case we established a number of years ago this court auto policies cover more than just driving all policies cover more than just driving they enclosed they coverage loading and unloading they covered use of this truck so it can be more than just driving it is absolutely a vehicle policy but because it covers  counsel but esky appropriately and candidly advised the trial court yes there is coverage for this farm accident of bent that caused these tragic results in this policy however however now we get to you just as government we have an excuse and that excludes coverage in this case so we all know when we have a policy that  purports to provide coverage in one part of the policy and then attempts to take away what they gave in the original part of the policy we have to go through a process to determine whether or not that exclusion is appropriate or not and what is that process well the process is it is the burden of the company to show that it is clear and free from doubt specifically illinois law says where an exclusionary clause it relied upon to deny coverage it's a political billet he must be clear and free from doubt and again it's their burden to prove that point now let's go to this what appears to be a rather old an archaic mechanical device exclusion it's not clear it's not free from do as an illustration of why it's not clear free from doubt we had a very competent trial judge we had three very wise justices not be able to figure out whether this is what it means i mean just to read it the movement of property by means of a mechanical device other than a hand truck that is not attached to the vehicle described in the above that is not clear that is not free from about what is a hand front we had to go to the dictionary to determine what that is it's a wheel barrel so if you read that it's a wheelbarrow are they trying to say that listen we're going to provide coverage bigger brain than this huge brain truck in this farm operation only when you use a wheelbarrow why would you be using a wheel barrel to a small wheelbarrow to unload grain in a large grain truck again it really doesn't it doesn't make sense and we should not have to go from webster's to dictionary dot com to determine what this actually meant we haven't a gentleman farmer who is an absolute gentleman farmer who specifically said i want this grain truck covered and i also want this indorsement showing farm use and farm truck and promotional use and then if we apply the principles of shoal saying well wait a minute insurance coverage for vehicles up is a lot more than just driving it's use we talk about completed operation doctrine to cover all those events that occur from the start of the process of the loading to the end of the unloading so  it's not clear i think you could line up one hundred folks over well educated in the law and farmers and no one would agree upon what that means state farm to has at least two pages of definitions in its policy they could have and certainly should have applied a definition to what they need in this case they did not do it they may have done it by now but clearly it's not well written it's our pay and it's absolutely not clear or for free from doubt this is sure to factor into our discussion or ration that there was a farm liability policy no i don't believe it should it's been mentioned in the briefs and i will candidly say that mr elmore did receive funds from another policy specifically but anyway and i think it's also important to note that if you affirm the appellate court you are not going to up and the insurance industry you can see by this case we all agree it's a not going to up end the insurance industry by affirming this opinion while it is incredibly important incredibly important to can tell more in this case it will it's not going to again change the landscape of the insurance industry at all if nothing else it should serve as a reminder that when insurance carriers and companies and turnings draft their policies they should be more clear and when necessary they should include definition and that's why this court and all the other appellate courts have said if there's any doubt if there's any ambiguity we're going to construe the policy liberally in so i think that's really more of a side collateral issue not necessarily on point with regard to whether or not this policy exclusion is clear or not but i do think from a standpoint of to have definitions but the difference between an insured person is a permissive user i don't think that's particularly right on point with regard to this case but i think it does illustrate and highlight the care that  couple years old no it's called crap and basically what it held was that once an insurance policy is issued the insured has the burden of looking over the policy and making sure the coverages are the appropriate coverages because the statue of limitations runs against the agent if they negligently got the wrong coverage that statute runs immediately when the insurers obtain the policy now why i say that's significant under crop is this if mr sho council says bargain for this policy if he wanted there's if you wanted coverage for is fine i'm implementing under this automobile liability policy he was required to contact the state farm agent and say there's a problem here because he again he needs to look over the policy and counsel mention the endorsements and this is something that the appellate court sees down which is this six thousand and fifty five z z z foam truck low when we go to the six exclusion says there is no coverage for an insured for bodily injury or damage to property arising out of the operation of any farm implement so mr if there is a problem again mr o a gated to contact his insurance state farm agent say i want this policy change there's a problem where there wasn't a problem and the reason why there wasn't a problem it's because he did have a farm liability policy and the farm why don't the policy did cover this entirely reasonable and actually make sense under this court's recent opinion and then there crop case because he had suffered policies to cover separate risks and that's what the policies are designed to do this this argument that well you know this exclusion doesn't make any sense well this is a is a great dog or a mechanical device i mean is that a given to a reasonable person the point of all of this is  is there and all the policy covers the automobile yes the truck is going to be used for some other loading but the problem in the case is is part of the rolling up aeration these from implements that are being used in a loading one possibility that could have been done here instead of the grain in order he could have had a front loader and i i don't know if a lot of farmers had this expensive piece of construction equipment but you could have the the truck could dump the grange the green order early the  policy issued two for the truck that's a completely different a completely different a different piece of equipment would be a front loader but the same principle applies you know it's a little bit of an extreme example but the same principle applies the point of the exclusion is that their coverage is limited to the vehicle it's not going to be extended onto additional equipment farm equipment used in this operation because some of this farm equipment around hers is extremely dangerous and you know again the green order it's got a powerful p t o attached it's got that screw i mean it from can make sure me dangerous business and that's why there are certain color does apply to farm implements other coverages apply in different policies applied to automobiles so this notion that it's broader say well that's just something that's the point of the exclusion is used so to make sure that unrelated equipment or i should say all this additional equipment that might be on a farm that's not going to be covered in the auto policy because again all this other equipment that could be very dangerous could hurt somebody that's that's the subject of coverage for a different policy and that's just how these policies work together