of wise men and the reason i'm bringing it up is because in this in this case we're dealing with a concept that buys in illinois a worker's compensation law and that is if an insurer writes a policy in this state for workers compensation coverage then insurers are going to be subject to some stitcher torry hansen points as including the fact that there are statutory coverage obligations that may or may not appear in the actual policies that they write in this case the commission found that such a statutory coverage obligation existed between travelers insurance and isaac claims injury and the  court reversed that a decision that was not only erroneous from a legal standpoint but it applied skinner said nothing to do with the question that was actually pending before that court but i mean this is come down the tra position as i understand it arguing episode because they were not named as an indication will ensure that the cia's insurance policy until august twenty ninth two thousand and three without that indorsement therefore didn't cover them is that in essence what they're saying there should have been some endorsement specifically naming them i agree if that's what they're saying i disagree if it has any relevance on the analysis that needs to be undertaken to answer the question of whether there should be coverage and we might agree with you on that is that because of the other section of the act or a three it's yes my main argument is that forty three answers the question very simply and says simply forty three says that any time there's a policy it must  them over and over them yes in fact it's not only possible that is the facts of this case but for reasons that i'm not clear on the actual written agreement was now put into the record but there w by at least three witnesses there cited in the arbitration and commission decision that support the existence of that agreement travellers implicitly agrees urse concedes the existence of such an agreement in its brief and i don't really think that that said issue here that there was an agreement that you see i was going to provide workers comp coverage for anything that happened to its employees while working for  and also concedes that it had this policy in effect for a three was this agreement that you see i would provide coverage once that is established section one eighty four states that u c i is the loaning employer becomes primarily liable for the injury of corrugated metal evidence that you see i may have attempted to pay at some point but it eventually it came down to travelers the other concept that is raised under section one hundred four is that when you have a lending and borrowing situation the liability  joint and several the joint liability of the c i was never ever gated by any circumstances of this case klein was already their primary employee they had this  liability under section one hundred four of the act so there is no point in time when plane wasn't directly covered by this policy whether or not he worked for precision so whether you use the clearly  it's brief as well it's twenty one but more importantly that y'all ca does not have any provisions in it that negate coverage of a policy they only apply to disclosures and premiums as nothing to do with whether a policy affords coverage or doesn't afford coverage in a certain situation more importantly that the perceived nonpayment of premiums which was i believe the linchpin of the circuit court's decision to reverse th case is entirely irrelevant to the inquiry to first of all there's no evidence that there was none payment of premiums secondly if there was some kind of dispute about what the appropriate premium was the duty was on argue that that's exactly the case because the risk pool by definition involves high risk and shores and if a company like trailers is compelled to cover them by that statute then it would seem to me either of you need for more a greater sense of urgency to investigate the insured and find out what they have and what they're required to cover they didn't have any choice about sure seattle they had to that's my understanding but at the same time they had a full capability to investigate and inquire into the cia's records at which point they would have seen klein's name on the payroll because he was on the e c guy payroll they would have also found that perception had been a borrowing employer since two thousand that was already ongoing for two years before this policy at issue when in fact the third point is that the insurance co to allow those trailers to retroactively recover premiums if they find out later that they under charge and the interesting thing was there's a case where travelers itself was the plaintiff where they were found to be entitled to just that kind of recovery against a loaning employer who had gone bankrupt after a case had been filed by an employee of a borrowing employer it's almost on all fours with this case aspires at least establishing travelers ability to recover cover premiums hired me to cover only premiums correct but we covering premiums is what they would have gotten if there was no dispute at all about coverage that's how the insurance business works they have to calculate the premium and then they have to insure the rest and do you know that it's their case the last thing i want to touch upon with this judicial notice argument and i would say that the commission correctly declines to accept the additional evidence that was offered by travelers before the commission in a circuit court again correctly declines to allow that and that evidence into the record yet specifically covers that situation doesn't ever saluted the specter specially of the commission level but travelers was urging th circuit court or this court could independently allow the evidence in which i would argue is also now proper for the simple reason that we're after the fact here but for them the more  specific reason that these documents that they're trying to offer are neither readily verifiable nor are they relevant to the issue nothing in the most accurate pertains to the question of whether their statutory coverage under the i'll say yes to do with a bunch of ancillary issues that don't impact the outcome of the policy coverage question one way or the other lastly i make a public policy document based upon the remediate nature of the worker compensation act that a policy issue like the one in this case should be interpreted in favor of which to fulfill the remediate all purpose of the worker's comp system so the consequences here in my opinion should be a beacon rather than a scare crow the statute the facts of the case and the case law all support the commission's original decision that there should have been primary coverage with travelers so for these reasons and those discussed in the briefs i filed on behalf of persuasion i respectfully request this honorable court to reverse the judgment of the circuit court and reinstate the decision of the commission i good morning and may please the court counsel my name is mike racism here today and we have of trailers we heard very little in the council's argument about what the employee leasing company actually provides  statute is clear and concise as section thirty a one provides that the lessee shall be identified by endorsement and that coverage quote under the endorsement shall be limited to the named insurance employee s least the last see close quote the stated uses the word shall and distrust mandatory coverage shall be limited to employee s who are at least to the left see nothing about the mandatory language is ambiguous applying that law as written travelers owed no coverage when precision cabinets as the clients of e c i was not in it to the policy until more than seven months after klein was injured on january tenth two obligation to ensure the liability can be affected but actually there are a number of ways that that can be done it can be done through self insurance can be done through a bond it can be done through a policy issued by the mi all right that's house price if i you can see that in the record and under their policy the policy has to be compliant with the statute and what we're saying is it's not just the best statute it's also the employee to the commission when it's on file as it was here so it's not just a three it's a four because the contract has its own carve out provision it has its own safe harbor provision that allows for a n to satisfy the statutory obligations so a company couldn't build to insure the endorsement how do we know this in addition to going with just thirty a one that i read to you before looking subsection  twenty ninth two thousand and three seven months after the injury took place i don't think i believe that the statutes are consistent they can be harmonised i think that the employee leasing now the commission's decision probably all employees were covered during the coverage period best binding directly pantry beans section thirty eighty which states to the contrary the coverage shall be limited to employees least the less to adopt the commission's reasoning that employees are covered no matter what we're frustrate the declared purpose of section five of the employee leasing company act which is to ensure that the premium is called commensurate purpose of the statute we submitted it would be few tile to impose the record keeping and the reporting requirements unless sorries if the legislature company can be read to require us to cover a risk before the date that the endorsement issue we never received a premium for this risk until august twenty ninth two thousand and three decision came to simply ignores leading edges roll in this case easy i never reported this claim to travelers instead leading heads was listed as the insured it was a premium based on the release before august twenty ninth two thousand and three when leading edge was actually paying hundreds of thousands of dollars we were not notified about this claim until the middle of zero six when when the leading edge basically defaulted on that obligation we were put on notice by the petitioners attorney that by the cia they were not looking to us they knew they had no coverage for this administrative proceedings i was surprised to hear today that counsel question the reliability and the authenticity of the records that are at issue here any records which will aid in the efficient disposition of the case doesn't matter who was in before the arbitrator or who wasn't before the commission or even to wasn't before the trial court you can take to show notice because you're the as far as what these records show they show first of all that e c i had coverage with an admitted here we're leading edge between january one of both three and us generally want to vote premium of i think was about fifty five or eighty four thousand dollars all of a sudden august twenty ninth two thousand and three page after page after page of endorsements naming all of their clients  arrangements the policy their records explain why you see i never reported this claim to trailers leading edges payments of the coin the diversion of insurance premiums the record does show the  federal indictment which is also part of the record and why you see i had all of these arrangements put on the policy only through or beginning in september of zero three taking judicial notice will lead to an informed decision and prevents a court from making its decision ineffectual then we ask you to affirm the trial court and reverse the industrial commission and on across the field we ask that you reverse the trial court and take tradition notice of the records because they will help you decide the case thank you very much state those things does not come with any consequence that there is now no coverage under the policy bad section of it does not negate section forty three of the workers compensation  the fact that section four a three also contains the plain old statement that any provision in any policy or any endorsement attached there to attempting to limit or modify in any way  liability of the insurance carriers issuing the same except as otherwise provided here in shall be wholly void so if there was a problem with the endorsement the problem is what's void not the coverage under section little that would have to limit  of he saying these could be read in harmony he was inviting you to answer the public policy question i suppose using one should be egg require them to be obligated to provide coverage before somebody is ever added to the policy well we're talking about i suppose another apple an orange situation the obligation a forty three is between me and sure we're really in the injured worker is saying that there has to be coverage because the injured worker is to have coverage that's the remedial purpose of the at the intent of the policy of the is between the loaning employer your employer and the insurer and in this case i don't have any dispute with the fact that  c i always an appropriate pile policy or premium to travelers for the coverage that's been afforded but there's are two different concepts here and two different groups are there implicated by these different policies