essentially the rock on which we based the really we're seeking here is the very clear rule of illinois law that these individuals of wired rights in those insurance policies th it act the time that they were exposed to a spouses and the question presented here is whether or not the subsequent dissolution of all spring and are completely bars these individuals from being able to vindicate those vested rights in the policies and we follow a declaratory judgment action in your county illinois which is where all's brinkman was located and where designated as nominal defendants such that the libel realty and a miles of damages in each individual case can be established thereby enabling these individuals to vindicate their rights that they possess in these policies without the necessity of actually suing a dissolve corporation which twelve point eight zero it would prohibit in these instances or without violating the illinois law prohibition against direct actions against insurance companies so at the time of the thing of the assets to use very little was there any reference in the wanted this out of that issue was actually living gated in a case that in the city of chicago where new spring was held not to be a successor in interest to old spring hill and the relief we see here yes it was and if we look at the citizens electric case that's a seven circuit case in this situation good we didn't have a copy of the actual asset purchase agreement when we filed our case we brought this in the alternative and based on what the defendants provided here it would appear that it did not transfer to new spring m to its dissolution goes to the shareholders and at the time we filed we didn't know which direction it went so we rock our ass for relief of the alternative the new spring many of the policies did transfer or the  creditors if it is not would be the proper nominal partner and it would appear although the fourth love never never got to that issue because they decided that our roof was barred by the twelve point eight zero it would appear that the crammers would probably be the yes basis is product liability these are individuals who were on premises were springing to do the work but were not actual employees of sprint and our position is that those rights are not extinguished by the dissolution  doesn't apply to insurance policies we've noted a number of cases where in as that's the past the shareholders dissolution the sure owners themselves have been allowed to go and with the workers that is that will the asset or wire is the lease the right was to get the return of the security deposit and even after the corporate dissolved and the dissolution statute bars actions i corporations every bit as much as  bar's actions against corporations sure holder was nevertheless permitted to go out and recover the security deposit in another situation in the shooting case the shareholders took a no on behalf of the corporation when it the things that the court knows there was the availability of an indemnity insurance of liability insurance in that case such that the the goal of the corporate dissolution statute would not be disruptive and what that means is that one of the goals of being able to dissolve corporation is that those assets can then be freed up seem to do other productive things in the state of illinois bell be disrupted here those this about twenty million dollars worth of i'm exhausted insurance covers at some point the policy limits that were agreed to when these various policies and we're talking about a number of different policies over different years from the time the quote below essentially ruled as a matter of law the courts were powerless in this area with the legislature had acted here and we didn't really get down to dealing with the the language of the policies in this recognizes situations where in nominal parties sue sure is super or it's already limited insurance coverage where there's no risk of the party that the jury sees being at at and their personal assets that it's all about establishing liability and damages you know access coverage in a proceeding where the jury doesn't hear word one about the fact that there is coverage available so rather than give you something new the contractual hovers between all the sprint men and the insurance companies in the stand on whether or not the in the nominal the fence they are actually stepping is the surrogate for purposes of enforcing the rights that my client was closed there might be issues with being able to access that coverage but in our opposition you would be the same while the state was open the assets of the estate as well as the coverage would be available the coverage would survive for injuries like this that were tom's were going to cause a late an injury that would be something that the courts would have the power to address whether or not based on the the equities  plays against a person who's deceased have to be assertive and that's part of the trust process of wanting it down i'm aware of no case where and i have been doing insurance pretty much all my career i don't know what that says about me but at the end of a wind down period i don't believe in individuals insurance policies would stick around to contribute to into perpetuity for purposes of claims against it then a person and i'm certainly not aware of any case ever brought against insurance policies of a dead person posting the winding up of their affairs and never seen it i guess that's because being negative haven't really looked but i would imagine you've stumbled onto that if that were actually approach a reasonable recovery i think what i think what we're hearing here is that that type of recovery would be consistent with the theory and that's not the way the law works as i understand it second of all your honor asked a couple questions about the language of the policies themselves i think that does deserve some focus and it has been touched upon in our briefing which is these are liability because it's been extinguished the liability has been extinguished by virtue of the dissolution statue and the survival period the five years of follows the dissolution is what the legislature has deemed to be the proper amount of time to recently by the illinois supreme court in the fall to case which is a very similar kind of case that works it remains to workers compensation laws and time buyers understand there's a proposed in essence at the end of the workers compensation last and the meant is that the policyholder and the insurer couldn't work together to terminate the claimants rights that's a very different situation and it didn't involve a solution at all that's different then the wind up situation the corporate dissolution situation case that says the policies live into perpetuity that's what would have to be the result here insurance policies for corporations would have to live in to get to it until they're exhausted they may never be exhausted they may be around forever that's not how insurance is underwritten but first of all i think it's important for us to pause on the was that exists because i think that's what we're here to do is to determine whether or not there's a claim that exists under existing law and read issues plaintiffs can pursue either those are all things that are agreed by the parties to avoid what they claim is the harsh outcome of the undisputed facts and law place to start asking this court to disregard the consequences of a dissolution and create a new act will avenue of recovery that would permit injured claimants to sue or dissolve corporations insure for liabilities that have been extinguished by statute and law so be no mistake they're asking for something new here they request establishment of such an avenue of recovery despite the fact that only courts have consistently and repeatedly construe the dissolution statutes strictly an internal rule that it is the legislature's role to  permit new avenues of relief like that sought here and the legislature has expressly declined more than once to do so and i want to break this down just a bit starting with the issue of late a cool on the language of the statute i act fact alone is dispositive is the illinois supreme court is specifically woold that only causes of action against a corporation which have actually a crude prior to the corporation's dissolution are preserved by the dissolution statute that's the case that's an twenty twelve illinois supreme court case on plaintiff's claim that they should nonetheless be permitted to pursue supposed interests in the insurance policies based on such claim having vested at the time of their lead in injuries they want to substitute they were injured ok the policyholder was someone who had constructed that land mine company or something and the and they're sure those two people got together and really there was no coverage on the policy determined in this case we don't know for certain that there is a liability i mean the right what you've heard is well there wasn't a pastor there must be now that's not necessarily true those amounts that were paid out by the insurance company during the during the time that i point they have no interest in of winning those liabilities because they're not personally liable i mean this is also a new concept but they would have no reason to assert those sort of defenses about why there shouldn't be an indemnity payment in a real realistic ability to crew for anything because the companies long gone and that's part of the rationale behind dissolution that becomes a period of time in which no one can really prove these things anymore this is something that happened you know years ago he agrees that the shareholders themselves have no liability they're just not on their like place keepers in essence because the reality is under the statute they have no liability morris response to the idea they are only supposed to defend themselves because this all happened a long time ago that's part of the idea of getting down to the equities in this case we're not saying that in every single case you can actually get the process we're asking for with the court below should've taken a harder look at whether this is a good situation all of the individuals who were balls pregnant have been deposed documents have been taken in discovery these cases  their concern and it's just about whether or not these particular individuals were exposed or not yes the statute does for their holders as well as referring to corporations the statute a refers to actions by as well as against and one of the questions we ask is basically this if the shareholders of a corporation after its dissolution who were in a position to structure their affairs to bring  timely thing when the wind up here you are allowed to do so afterwards why can't actions be brought against them in order to access those same assets in a similar fashion that's what we're asking to be done to do is to reverse that determination so that we can take the next stops and fully vet the appropriateness of the remedy we seek under the activities thank you