my name is john smith and together with philip where of counsel at my firm we represent the plaintiff appellant irene slash this appeal centers on the question of statutory interpretation specifically five slash thirteen two zero nine b which governs the procedure for when a person against whom an action may be brought dies before this filed and before the political statute of limitations period expired because this is because this matter rights of the trial court's interpretation of to whom be the standard of review here is you know this matter of originally rose feet to has anything to do with this case because the motion for the special representative was brought under seven thirty five  for over substance because in virtually every way the notice requirements i am other than being labeled one zero zero eight persons two zero nine till there the  it would have been brought it should have been brought  arpad our position i want to appeal is that the limitations period six month limitation period is isolated within the one in it does not apply to you too we argue this is evidenced by  our research indicates that this is a matter of first impression for the court and the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain your intention to ascertain and give the fact of the intent of the legislature where the statutory language is empty and big us as the cases here the court in considering that language may look beyond the statutory language and look at the underlying purpose or policy of the statu where a court in construing is fashion expresses concern over a statute and then the legislature subsequently  was decided in february february of two thousand and six this court addressed a case with one virtually identical facts and it the plaintiffs filed suit and it this court ultimately dispensed the plaintiffs cause of action but in doing so justice cooke wrote a dissent for it and he noted that when a defendant dies prior to suit being piled complications frequently complications arise and just by researching this case judging by the case all in the frequent movements to the statute it seems like complications frequently arise under these passed away it just as cook argued that that was a descriptive term it wasn't meant to be a rigorous substantive requirement but this court held that the express lane which in c part of claim but even but even the majority in this missing the case recognized that these cases often elevate form over substance but because so in august the option to pursue a claim for the proceeds of liability insurance protecting the estate against a special representative this and it would serve to save ms sledges case in the current matter this interpretation entirely consistent with the public policy underlying in to death were placed after letters of the ministration to broaden not narrow the case and now we argue that to all nine to was added to protect what was added as a result of  it did nothing in regard to that it only created a procedure for someone to appoint a special representative and that special representative would then if step special representative has not already been appointed with then you go on if in case that's the was decided then of course brought us into a situation where we have to determine whether or not vincy was added rather and then once we got to the point where we're dealing with somebody who is aware of the death where the passing then we have to decide whether or not there is something that would prohibit this from continuing on ok i just dismissed this type correctly because they decided at that time based upon identical life if you look at  limitation or otherwise allowing for additional time to file as the one allows then of course the precedents that we're talking about your that rule based upon he had to  address the other organs about where the probate act would in some way save this as well you're either even outside the time period for that because the amended complaint in this matter and motion to amend the complaint was not filed until june  eleventh of two thousand and ten almost four years after the accident so even looking at the probate act that would not say this because probate expert says that you two years five and also do not relate additionally statutes of limitation augustus pointed out specifically and they made it very succinct face it if you interpret it as as it was proffered that that be the statutory language relate to what we're talking about here if that was be to be open ended he said it would theoretically place no time limit on bringing a suit because a plaintiff good at any time after the statute of limitations that timeframe was in effect before augustus that time frame was in effect back and gone that time frame hasn't changed up to today tune was only asked for the purpose of setting forth a procedure for the thought out he indicated that this would just not be a logical reading of this statute that clear precise reading you don't have to go back and legislative intent where you have a statute that's very clear and in this matter statutes very clear the claim is being brought sorry any time the claim is being limited to the proceeds of liability insurance it's also the statute is also being extended for into a nine c for example c c four allows allows you to have a two year limitations period beyond the original limitations period have six months to serve and a member can complain but when you're going after liability liability insurance companies the limitations period is extended and this is similar to you have a longer period to fi before the limitations period and only after the limitations here it expires the defendant files a motion to dismiss this isn't a case where these are cases where  along secondly to one see speech as i stated earlier gives up a proposed period here for actions filed against proceeds of liability insurance which is two years to be on your original