answered in the court's opinion is whether or not a contractor doing business with a state agency may seek judicial in forstmann of the very was it were enacted to protect the businesses who enter into such contracts in other words is the proper payment act in forcible at all or as the outcome of the state's argument is it simply not enforceable the interest crucial to businesses who rely on does indeed make determinations on how much interest is due but the fundamental problem is until then balancers gets submitted to the comptroller for payment there is nothing for the court of claims to act following the state acknowledging that project was completed in conformity with the contract the state has used the building and excellently me fused to pay for it the state has refused to or absolutely recalcitrant lee refused to do for three years and it has refused to pursue any alleged defense that it had us and it claims that the circuit court simply does not have the power to enforce had  as the transmittal are only twenty two the actual document it says a substantial completion date is august fifteenth it has boxes to say when the work's complete or partial it's checked that the work is complete i get says that or even to insure the premises any further beyond that and the only obligation remaining are thirteen punch list items due on august fifteenth two thousand and eleven and it was there after in december two thousand and eleven at the it can't be answered that way for this reason because there are some competing for vision's in the arrangement that contract has its own independent process for dealing with damage claims that are of liability insurance five hundred thousand per car and some million for the entire project in this case as the pleading shows c d b accepted that insurance it's a bailable and c d b sole when the end of the contract is to pursue  february two thousand beloved by the project was ongoing and peaking insurance did not deny that it had a responsibility as the insurer were right but didn't have as insurers typically do without presentation of any proof did not agree that there was any liability so the require of the construction contract isn't to have insurance so that if a claim is made satisfaction of any judgment will be guaranteed by c d b that valentine or valentines were cursed cause damage that hasn't been paid for and no further action eight months later in august they begin signing the notice of substantial completion  and when the final invoices were submitted by january two thousand and twelve the front payment act required notice of any defects in the invoices to be clearly identified the joint rules that were adopted required specific detail about what is wrong with the invoice what's wrong with the construction work that was done as a requirement when that thirty day window closed the state had given up that any such claim has any validity so on the basis of an completely unsubstantiated claim tamala time you you were one of your workers damaged they project damaged the waterline in the capit building we simply refused to pay you and when you try to compel compliance under the prompt payment act with throw up in defense of sovereign immunity as a blanket defense to having no responsibility either to comply with  or to bring its own suit knowing that there's an insurance policy that will pay for you if it's to do so completely riggers meaningless the entire process of having to submit don't work for approval to obtain a certificate of substantial completion or to take the steps to provide a proper bill under the pump a net so what happened in short is that the state took control of the building three years ago now refuses to pay and now or use that were without a remedy under the law before the search for there's such a thing is a certificate of final proportion there is one that comes with payment the just fifteen or was it october fifteenth and even then the final signatures on that came in december without raising the issue and they've not been raised to this day let's assume that  for these kinds of ancillary torts to the extent of there being a male an insurance policy in place that would cover it which exists in this case and so see be decided and this is not uncommon in construction to do unexpected the contract doesn't say you have to provide an insurance policy that guarantees payment without proof of liability and it would be nonsensical to have a contract that requires such a thing instead it requires polacks intercepts from income tax refunds to taxpayers payments that are owed back to the state by the taxpayer the process for that however requires that the obligation that the state is claiming first be established through a hearing process or a judgment so there are two ways or c b to collect including an offset and prove that there is damage caused by valentine as opposed to some other costs so the state simply has taken five hundred thousand dollars worth of construction from valentine and refused to pay and it has never point up evidence that valentine is responsible for this one bit let me ask you a question about this if this were some of the over let's assume it was the when there's a contradiction contract clause like one here that waves the property damage claims by first imposing an obligation to have a liability insurance policy that's acceptable yes that's exactly the process negligence claim that would be a separate counts in the end there may be two judgments the offset only happens in the end because the property damage unless it's specified in the contract isn't a defense to the contractual obligation especially here there was no allegation that was what what position would they be him to get paid other then asking the court anything that say says ok if the work is completed you must submit this valid trip state officials do have discretion in situations like this to make judgments about haven't given that up there is a contract provision saying there is a waiver of damages to the extent they are covered but here the insurance company is refusing to pay there is also a  that the state can withhold payments if it determines that the contract requirements have not been met and the cash for requirement that would not have been met here is if you damage the is the answer yes i have nothing to indicate that it has ever been used in this fashion and again the prime payment act and its regulations you know even if we didn't argue sovereign immunity this possibility for mandamus under the prime payment act because it does act on the regulations to say that the state is supposed to decide whether a proper a bill is a proper bil all minor things that need to be done to complete that i think what falling team is doing in this case and has they are complaining satisfaction with the work with approving payment of the contract and here well he's explicit i think the response of my question of either some correctly say your sister figures obsess completion saying just we don't see about why at all well he's heard the basis of his clay or some cause or something to the contract what about it no i don't think there would be any clause in the contract that it would or would indicate suited for situations and i think has really been touched on this where the plane has been adjudicated or where the liability is very clear the comptroller doesn't suited for now the provision that doesn't occur does say we can resort to that he is correct in saying that but again it also says right off that provision that says the state  be submitted to the from troll or for payment and then you have to seek i guess your claim for damages against holland team to the circuit court today is that his position as you understand that's how i findings the state claims their guy cause this hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage maybe they claim well that's not true prove it to the court of claims that you can't  that clauses rendered pretty much meaningless in cases like best because we would always the state would always be compelled to go after the insurance company well if they didn't have that advocating that's no we don't have that no no not no matter what but they would have to pay if there is a liability i mean if they are if volunteer really should be held liable yes royally due to damage to water the whole basis is that c d b claims there is a water leak which c d b is never tender any evidence to prove and they claim they don't have to make payment architect engineer each contractor including follow time waive all rights against each other it's a mutual obligation for ages caught by fire or any other peril to the extent of bail was a claim that is covered by multimillion dollar judgment in favor of a chicago construction company despite a court of claims judgment into it up in the state budget and the governor took and prepared a line item veto and vetoed out that judgment and it was not  and furthermore it seems to me that if you if you're a construction company and you contract with the c e o the if you don't want your claims to be resolved by the court of claims the new contract with the state of illinois i think that what the law is is that contractors are allowed to rely on the stage of tory law because well counsel said that c d b has discretion just discretion not to submit bouncers that's not the law the law is that public officials have to comply with the law and if there is no requirement that they comply with the law that's in forcible in the circuit court they c d b just takes five hundred thousand dollars of construction makes an unsubstantiated assertion that you power to determine issues like contractual in this context it would be a contractual claim this negligence claim is not a contractual claim it's an independent claim even in the circuit court it would be very different three years now four years from first making some of the assertions but three full years in which to do that and simply have just taken this without payment and without ready the prop a minute ad is part of the construction contract contractor should have the right to rely on the horsemen of the wall and public officials following it s with this action six ok thanks to both of you standing