involving motor vehicles though this case was some of unusual because we were not dealing with a simple car crash we're dealing with pickup truck hauling a farm implement this chisel so it can serve all about time in the trial court was spent discussing the use of a motorized vehicle that's the only question at issue here that tracks the policy language perfectly if these injuries arose out of the use of a motorized vehicle then the coverage of the policy and there is no duty to defend no video a strong case can be made that all of the injuries were caused as a direct result of the use of a motorized vehicle and briefly this is what happened towing a formal down the highway he sees traffic coming the other way i imagine he pulled the pickup truck off to the right side of the road that this just will struck the guardrail careened off and went into the opposite way of traffic where a powder collided with a school bus well the fact that the pickup truck did not make physical contact the school bus is absolutely no importance dealing with is this what caused this accident the allegations do not control it's the cause of the accident that will determine whether or not this policy applies whether this policy offers coverage the plain and simple was negligent in the use of a motorized vehicle now the supreme court has addressed this very question in a very brief opinion the northbrook decision they said that the motorized vehicle exclusion will be enforced unless the claim are filled with violations of the illinois motor vehicle code though you know in the big point a fairly enough in the previous will that doesn't that doesn't mean we're conceding that this is a motor vehicle accident and i said that's of that's a fair  sponsor but it does point out the nature of it illustrates the nature of this accident we are dealing with a motor vehicle accident he failed to keep a proper lookout he failed  or moving a vehicle on that on the highway and what in a sense there's some truth to that but it's a bit strange the only reason we put flags on large trailers and oversized equipment that they will be noticed on the highway by other vehicles thereby avoiding any danger again is this with right to the very heart of what this case is all about negligence in the use of a motorized vehicle wholly independent of the cause of the injuries of the second case as it was a very recent decision out of third district i think it's interesting because it kind of cuts both ways of their you're still dealing with injuries that were caused because this thing was in motion because it was being towed because it was the use of a motorized vehicle i'd say the same considerations apply in this case the fact that th operation of a pickup truck now i open my briefs with kind of a short description of the nature of the policies and so the and i want to explain why i did that you were dealing with an issue of the duty to defend think the explanation lies in the nature of the policies themselves of foreign policies c g o policies homeowners policies these are not designed to cover auto accidents if they were it would in normal sleep change the risk of the entire nature of the coverage is altered with as you can imagine significant consequences as to the use of those of the premiums charged i'd just like conclude by stating that it is impossible to characterize run fools use of this pickup truck in any way as being incidental to the action cause injuries under these circumstances there is no coverage of the policy police believe that the circuit court judge but next grueling denying a motion for judgment pleading should be affirmed by this court respectfully disagreeing with coun clearly allege wholly separate and distinct statutory violations directly against the piece of farm machinery condition however there are independent i believe courts have previously ruled that although this court case to consider is that if there is a an independent allegation in the complaint that would be cover i appreciate that that's a that's a very good distinction because i believe that's the one that the circuit court hunger head on here in their own policy they rock for mutual takes pains to define what a motorized vehicle is for purposes of the exclusion that they're seeking to use here that definition of motorized vehicle does not include anywhere in its attached farm machinery or attached equipment i believe it's important to note that the insurable interest is not the pickup truck here it is the disk chisel plow in a separate definition for what's called a motor vehicle the rockford mutual policy does take the time to elicit a definition that includes attached machinery and equipment and judge up there's also injury or damage resulting from the be used it has to cross the road to to go to another piece of the farm i submit to you even if it were sitting in the back of conveyances is irrelevant here it could be done by a horse could be it happened would give a single if not more allegations for credit or to construe this against this policy and when you look at insurance policy you see motorized vehicle and you see a definition that doesn't include anything about the tasha shaner here and then you see an exclusion that just talks about motorized vehicles you have to wonder and think if they didn't mean to include it in the definition motorized vehicle then  policy the pickup truck is not with rockford mutual insured the disk which is a power is what is insured and i believe that's the circuit court case to consider that everybody's   and we have several in the underlying complaints in this matter then the that is a sufficient not conduct two to construe the policy applicable for coverage i believe also the case of marsh vs pekin speaks on this issue as well weary dump truck back over a young child and in that point there were allegations that road construction where flagmen failure to put did and in coming to that decision i believe they had to look at the actual language of the policy to determine that yes the trailer is part of auto definition i believe the distinction in this case is that the definition don't i understand that it's the movement of the vehicle having the farm implement in tow is it's hard to get around only in the sense that we the of the claims then that's sufficient enough to construe coverage in this case there are specific violations may pursuant to six twenty five c s five slash fifteen dash one two piece the vehicle implements that are designed to warn other motorists that there is a wide load and that about the bus comes in and then just off strikes the bus in that case we wouldn't be having this discussion i do understand that because there's a pickup truck we came to a motion for judgment on pleadings the fact that the big complaints do state separate violations test quite violations that have nothing to do with motion the motion  distinct allegation was enough i believe also because the policy itself and the fact that the trial court did look at the four corners of the policy is against the complaint to see that the policy itself went to pains to talk about the motorized vehicle but when they didn't find anything about attached putting in their definition i believe that that is where the supreme court found their own rule if you divide your time oh yes they should state chisel plow was not moving or if there was a flat tire the other example would be if the trailer hitch broke and they left the chisel plow on the side of the road and it's sticking out in the other lane of traffic the justice asked how is that the sting was a ball f pilot self in the fact that it is a piece of farm equipment we're talking about a farm policy and it exceeds the length of the roadway that's the proximate cause here the conveyance of the chisel file is incidental when reading the policy and council it brought up public policy and you need to interpret the policy for it's what it's intended and we do not want commercial general liability policies or fire policies to cover motor vehicle accidents i agree with that if he wasn't towing a piece of farm machinery it wouldn't be an issue if the driver had ray in a red light it wouldn't be an issue if the driver had failed to yield the right away it wouldn't be an issue because in those cases you're talking about the operation of a motor vehicle cited it defines the land motor vehicle trailer or semi trailer designed for travel on public roads including any attached machinery or equipment that language which appears in the rockford policy in the or symbol or which ma create an ambiguity to start with could have been placed in the definition of motorized vehicle just this while then it would have made it clear unambiguous and we would know what we're talking about in this case you're a farmer you're towing your piece of equipment that is wider than the roadway that's the only way you can get it here farm and now you're not however and that's not part of your farm operation if the council wants to talk about the purposes of these policies and what whether this is that you look at the language of the policy provision we're dealing with here no coverage for injuries arising out of the directly or indirectly use use of a motorized vehicle and the court said no reason they were using it as a motorized vehicle they were using it as a storage container for the children they said the proximate cause was not the use of a motorized vehicle there are limits to the case itself is far more important than what i'm going to say and i'm not going say this i'm not trying to embarrass you but i want to be consistent with myself and be taken within the last couple of weeks to remind coun that if your shirt is too tight you need to get another sure that needs to be buttoned at the top and the top i would prefer in the twenty first century that we know where ties it was the custom and practice to do so