additionally your asking you today fighting the exclusion of an a racist and excluded driver of sureness policy is invalid and that therefore insurance policy should provide coverage for an valid we are the illinois owners and operators of motor your kools have to have insurance coverage we also know that you only courts have allowed certain exclusions to coverage to be allowed however as i said it's the appleb she do about the insurance requirements in illinois it would what it would be that yes an owner of the vehicle would have to have insurance and it is likely that she would be excluded driver as she does not have a valid license yes however in this record yes that would be an issue of fact for the trial as you stated it so it would be perfectly acceptable to exclude the owner who does not have to deal with license or for medical reasons would have had a license other policies would have been before the supreme court on we believe that he doesn't have a valid driver's license it'd be covered by this policy insurance because he doesn't have a valid driver's license the application invalid or say that the particular women in this case which we don't know what it is do we know it is we don't know why she was excluded from the policy was there ever any testimony or affidavit supporting the motion for summary judgment that indicated why it was that they were excluding her as a driver on this policy no your honor there's no information is why she was excluded as a driver  for one moment it in effect yes i do not have our own motion for summary judgment on this issue appeal given that the primary issues on appeal would do no vote on it was regarding the ambiguity foreclosure action a policy and again the case before you today is about an insurance policy with no will review so you are making a good faith argument that sage rule three seventy five sections are not appropriate in this particular i don't think the reason for the exclusion ever came out of the trial court because it wasn't really raises an issue as far as i know in the in the trial court in general and the summary judgment that our him was for whatever reason we  the same nurse exclusion she signed it that's what she purchased and i think that the judge decided based on that so i don't think that the reason for a shuns of ever came out so that we could do we need to know the reason for the suspension in order to determine whether it was against  the reason for the exclusion take in order to determine whether or not it was against public policy i don't think you do i don't think you do why not because the spring court none of the cases that have dealt with this have said that you have to have a good reason for the exclusion that is in every case good is dealt with it must far given the basis for the exclusion in determining whether or not it's against public policy i stayed home where they talked about in those early cases the first cases decided the issue yes but we're in a point now or a bit of the laws are established so the court below didn't think was necessary to go into the reason why we didn't think it was necessary to go into the reason why illegal alien with a out of country driver's license gets into nancy first of all i don't think he is an illegal alien there's nothing the records show that and we're not excluding coverage for him there's a driver or the named insured article as far as we know they haven't they haven't addressed specifically whether a name driver can be excluded under these however there are public policy reasons we're all holding the name to ensure cases  excluding coverage for a name driver i think that will open a whole can of worms and other mind the whole reason there are these name drivers exclusions are a laugh because under the typical automobile insurance policy including the issue of the policy spouse so the public policy reason for allowing these names to traverse the oceans is so they have a family who has made while member has a bad driving record or in belo driver's license their family someone can still exclude her was it was even worse than suing this woman has a car and by law she had to get insurance for her car for whatever reason she wasn't able to get an insurance policy where she would be cover without the same driver's solution if you're not allowed any driver's exclusion for the name insurer and how is a car owner who doesn't have a spouse or friend who can be listed on the policy how is it person supposed to get it on the insurance for the car a general exclusion that's buried somewhere in the tunnels thing we're telling our front hey you're the person who we don't want to drive this car you're the one who's driver's record we don't like so we're telling you right now you're not going to cover if you here's the basis for the exclusion and it's valid rather than nobody brings it up we assume it's there i don't think the law can set burnouts there's nothing in any of the cases deciding the  because the supreme court is interpret the same statute that same statute not only says the named insured has to be covered but permissive drivers have to be covered and the supreme court says despite that you can have a name driver exclusion which excludes a permissive driver so how is it any different as to make sure the supreme court has upheld other exclusions as to both named insurance and permissive drivers including the food delivery explosion in the progressive case and the reasonable belief exclusion in the founders personal use case in all those cases exclusions are allowed to apply a lie to named insureds and  it's summary judgment for the exclusion just as for this correct you're asking us to save the insurance companies it's ok you don't have to say why you're excluding the driver because you know the second district has has a first big summary judgment where there's no nothing in the record telling us why there is an exclusion why the that the main driver named insured was excluded that's not necessarily i think that's what that decision affirming the judgment in this case would say in this case you didn't have to come out of this radius never objective to the jury issues of party should never allege that there was in any improper basis for a sting far they're alleging now that there is an improper basis for it but they never bothered to raise it below they never bothered to find out whether or not she had a valid driver's license or told her driver's record it's similar to the judgment that's your valid i don't think it was i think as a matter of contract law which interpretation of an interest is that we just have to have the burden of establishing that this is what the contract is think is that this is what the policy is this is what the parties agreed to let me ask you this question you have an illegal illegal alien who goes to an insurance company and he says i want insurance i don't have a valid driver's is that against public policy for an insurance company to sell insurance policy to someone who are no ways ever going to be insured insurable this i think you're overstating it because they are person even if they can't drive themselves they are covered for a number of reasons someone else is driving their car they're covered if they get hit by a hit and run driver and i'm sure motorists there are covered really so if they're driving a car and exclusion were necessary for you to prevail on a motion or central yes i don't think any of the cases impose a burden on the insurer to establish that this was a good reason for it position if i understand correctly is that state farm didn't raise this on the trial court therefore the issue now is weight i don't think they raised it in the trial court and all together in other words she signed a contract but it has to be in she's bound by the country but the validity of the contract seems to hinge on whether or not the exclusion was proper and then you argued also public