process of under illinois law if a misrepresentation appears in an application it may void a policy if it is material to the risk undertaken by the insurance company the evidence in this record showed by more than a preponderance of the evidence that the misrepresentation in this case which was martin flora's seniors failure to disclose this seventeen year old president  sought insurance for himself and his wife so i'm not sure if his wife was there but i know that he was there and his younger son who often accompanied him according to the record often accompanied h he understood english but he understood it less than more but he never indicated to the agent that he wasn't understanding what he was saying the son  companied him to places to act as an interpreter for him per se if he was not understanding something but mr williams i mean mr flo made no indication to mr williams that he wasn't understand what he was saying mr williams testified that he was nodding when mr williams was talking as if he understood and he never  agent submitted an application to founders after meeting with mr flores seen sr and questioning him about what kind of coverages he wanted with  cars that they wanted in short so he knew mr flores knew that this information was needed in order to apply for insurance for these vehicles so he wasn't completely in the dark about what an agent might want information and agent might want in order to prepare an application on his behalf and to poke him an insurance policy through a company that would give him the most competitive r so this isn't a completely this isn't a situation where mr flores was completely blind to the whole process that's just not the case and that wasn't the evidence in the record what was the evidence in the application he was seventeen years old at the time and had lived in the household his entire life his name was missing from the application but based upon the information that was disclosed and the si application founder's issued an insurance policy and there were some or if there was also a question what during the course of the litigation both of martin flo williams were independent agents that offer the products of a multitude of insurance companies and various lines of coverage and that mr williams will typically run the numbers vin numbers and the drivers data through a base to see which insurance company most competitively fits those people so  not have independent or does not have a chance all of these agents are independent agents that write insurance for a multitude of nonstandard insurance companies perhaps they have a few standard insurance companies and there but her standard insurance companies are the are that a rated insurance companies like state farm all state country companies that nonstandard insurance companies are the ones that insured the higher risk people that have poor driving records or poor products but what he has as his apollo and direct auto when united football and a whole host of others but they are necessary to provide insurance for everybody since it is mandatory in the state of illinois and the evidence in this record is that based upon the information disclosed on the application application yes and i thought there was a test or evidence that it was not cedars suge there was their fifteen year old son for that is the evidence and the  records suggests that there was no indication that there was a language barrier so he talked to him not in spanish but he spoke to him probably slowly and loudly not that i was able to to say and i read through the trial transcript on the border and i believe that the testimony at the trial was that the son signed his father's behalf in his presence but behalf yes so when founders received the upload or the facts they had a signed application that had information on it and based upon that information that was  faxed over or uploaded over by mr florida's agent they issued the policy but then they realized as i was saying that there was a seventeen year old undisclosed driver all in the household and he was the one who was involved in this accident involving intelligence they after after learning that this gentleman was a household number they conducted their investigation and realized that  been disposed of though he was a licensed driver in the household and the application requires the applicant to disclose all members of the household age fifteen years or older whether they're licensed or to the application requires the applicant to disclose all people in the household age fifteen years or older or regular driver's let me that's in the record that's  application is all over the rock critic but the complaint that congress filed stated that the misrepresentation was material it was material to the tune of eleven hundred dollars and change and that founders rescinded based upon those facts what founders did in this case your honor is this completely consistent with illinois law and with section one fifty four of the insurance the misrepresentation even if innocently made if it is material to the risk will justify their perception of the policy also the only evidence of record in this case as i stated is that the hoffman agency and mr williams were independent agents who are acting for the benefit of the customer which in this case will were the flores individuals as they weren't acting for the benefit of the insurance that's correct that this correct they are who pays them can you to say that the agents are paid a commission of the premium but all agencies i mean they have to make a living and that's how they make a living but there is no agency relationship between founders and any any of these agencies that offer its products and the products of numerous other insurance companies there are independent agents who are put in motion by the customers that walk through their door so all founders knew your honour's is what it saw on the application all it based its decision to write this risk was what it saw on the up location but they then learned that they weren't told everything that they should have been told and that was requested on the application that was signed by mr floridas or his son on his behalf so what the trial court found that the agent was an independent agent acting on behalf of the customer but then found against founder and then at your honour's is what is is the reversible error in this case the court and farmers vs good old son of that the agent in that case was miles and french that was the name of the agency and i cite this case in my br williams and the huffman agency probably should have done more then they did in explaining things to mr mr flores while he was in their office this could not be attributed to insurance products operate within certain guidelines like this is acceptable this isn't acceptable so if it if this exists for example if they use their car for goober don't submit it because we're not going to insure that person i couldn't at all from the trial transcript or from the court's written opinion that went through that specific analysis but what i do know is that the only evidence presented at trial is that the government agency and williams were independent agents acting on behalf of mr flores at the time of the application process  florence walked through the door of the hoffman agency to get insurance for i believe four vehicles he said the agent in motion based upon what mr flores told mr williams during the application process mr williams calculated through his rating system or boat system which insurance company would be boast suitable for upon the rates that founders offered to these individuals he thought that founders would be the best fit for these customers now while it's true that the huffman agency as with any agency i paid from commissions from the premiums that the insurance company receives from the insurance this isn't the same thing as being able to control their actions i mean certainly founders can't fire somebody at the huffman agency because they came in late for work consistently for three weeks they can't exercise any control over these people they can simply stop them business with them but it's not the same thing as controlling them when you're  florence sat the agent in motion a florist controlled the agent's actions by either going with them or not going with them who  who paid the individual as as i've stated consistently the agent was paid through commissions as they all are and number four whose interests the person was protecting clearly hoffman was protecting the insurance agency with a piece of paper but it was testified by martin sr that paper only had the same information that his previous car insurance but he took the information that previous car insurance had on a piece of paper spanish the most that he could do was sign his name and printing it but he could not write in cursive and he was adamant about that in this situation of the application it never left the building so no one was allowed to review it he was not given a form that could be provided in spanish apparently at the trial the founders possesses a phone number for individuals who were spanish speaking to call but no one ever provided that number either before or after the application process so he was not aware of the fifteen year old or in this of more than sr having to be on e process no one ever spoke to martin sr in spanish about and the reason why i also say about this in terms of there was no investigation founders for the insurance application during direct testimony of mr hofmann founder's counsel kevin clark asked mr hoffman well there's four vehicles you should have known that there was a problem when there was only t driving in this case that whatever on the insurance application itself founders actually put in there right above the signature line where the applicant is supposed to sign that states air your ability to investigate this application to make sure that it's accurate they fail to do so only time they decided to investigate this accident is regarding the request to admit  founders up sent martin florida sr and his son request to admit long before the case was ever decided the judge should rule that he must that they must translate that into spanish before they are to answer they failed to do so in fact the requests were signed by martin flores but only after his discovery deposition was taken in which all of the questions in the request to  met had been answered by morton sr saying that this was not his signature so any going into trial kevin clark had the ability when he was cross examining martin sr to deem those facts emitted by the trial court and he did he used those requests to admit to it pete in an attempt to impeach martin seniors testimony but he never actually asked the court to deem those  sr it was signed by someone else and the court and the founders are now making the assertion that the applications and seniors should be held responsible for those misconceptions when he was not the one who actually sign acting on behalf of founders in this situation yes mr flores entered the building have been insurance agency but from there mr kaufman only i believe looked at somebody else will it go here's a standard practice when asked for evidence of that he could not produce evidence that he did that were any examples where he actually had done that for martin sr secondly in his discovery deposition he unequivocally stated when asked who are you an agent of and he said counters and when asked did you work for them he said yes he said at the beginning of the deposition and he said it at the end that was never objected to that was never never disagreed upon by founders counsel who was there at the deposition the entire time the only time it changed was after he spoke to plaintiff's counsel right before trial no that was not there is there has been no there has been mopo counsel in this situation i believe at least forty four defense attorneys including the show up so i'm not i'm not saying what we're also saying is that the reason why this was not fully hashed out was because of also founders did not do everything that they should have done and because of that until they waited until after the fact and they waited till after three people were dead before they decided to investigate t disclosed on the application it does not say that does not say that illinois lot allows insurance companies to conduct poster parents underwriting that's the law and that's what founders did here so there's nothing know what the application says is if we learn that any of the information on the sample patient is false or fraudulent we will ask that they learned it after the undisclosed driver was driving said anything doesn't put it it doesn't say that he didn't understand and he was present the fact that the that the thirteen year old son may have signed the sample occasion because his private it was done out in the open in front of the person on whose behalf this document was being signed mr florist wanted to get insurance and order to get insurance the application had to be side so they accomplished any evidence at all that hoffman or williams were founders cajuns now while mr hoffman but mr williams may have said it is deposition that he was the agent of founders that was  that bit of testimony or evidence in the deposition circuit as cross examination material at trial but it trial which is what the trial judge based his ruling on the evidence was that he was an independent agent counsel had every opportunity to cross examine him and say well didn't you say your deposition yes i'm assuming he did that but the trial court still found that this agent was an independent agent williams should have