our fifth case for this morning is straight against metropolitan casualty insurance mr sen question i think in this case is whether the illinois standard fire insurance policy is binding i think you are taking the position that it is not but then would you explain cases like f t s mortgage and long quest that say standard fire insurance form policy is indeed and in fact finding section twenty three a one point parity of the insurance codes best specifies that any policy must conform to the illinois standard firepower so what does that mean if not that a policy must provide at least as much coverage to be ensured as the standard policy because that's where i'm having a problem yes i think the standard fire policy when you say it's binding is is part of the policy the statute does say if it's a doctor i think the distinction is that it illinois concurrence of contract when two or more insurers insure the same risk there is no legislation i'm sorry ana i mean there is no legislation that states all fire policies must incorporate the terms and provisions no less favorable to the insured in the standard fire policy i agree twenty three zero one one hundred of the only ministry of code it provides that all policies must conform to the standard prior policy state the legislature has not specifically adopted that statute so i think you go back to but your problem insight to quite a few other parts of the code where the things adopted through the administrative process have the force and effect of law and this certainly has been and i guess it's your view that despite this list a through j in the standard fire policy you're you know a particular type of risk then it's to that degree a less valuable policy but i think what you have to focus on your honor is that the code there is no such provisions in the code contained in the standard for policy's list of permissible air you know that there's this list of things that you don't have to cover but you can actually make that list three times as long as you want you know an eight is e if you want you know what what makes that standard you know it means it's going to be different for every policy in the state and you don't we've looked at that in your palm and suggest that one fifty five twenty two b it represents a particular situation where there is special treatment for victims of domestic criminal domestic violence under the circumstances there but it doesn't necessarily say that you couldn't have an innocent cohen sure exception what's where i think the statute specifically addresses the innocent coal insured and the insurance industry's intentional act exclusion and the point is that the this report never even addressed the statute in holding that public an insurance intentional conduct must be covered if other conditions are met those there saying that limiting it to non fire losses is why one fifty five twenty two feet isn't superfluous let me ask you slightly different question  your opponents indicate mean these these forms are are actually quite similar around the country quite a few states adopt the same form they say that you're swimming upstream that most other states have not in fact adopted the very restrictive view that you have of this identical policy language or i would say that those decisions from other states haven't addressed the argument that the context of the standard for our policy in the engine grew once with the one fifty five twenty three b because that statute of course as you point out one fifty five twenty two b deals with all kinds of risk it's not just a fire specific so it might extend you know protection for an innocent cohen sure in different kinds of situations not involving the risk of fire to earthquakes or it's hurricanes or it's something else i think the focus should be is what you know what is the why public policy because there are no cases that have so why this illinois want to say i certainly obviously we have to have an exclusion for the tortfeasor because obviously we have a moral hazard problem with the intentional tort fees or could get coverage but the public policy question isn't that it's it's why not have the possibility of the innocent cohen sure showing that they had nothing to do with it like these poor people who not only lost their home but also you know have this issue with their son right what i think the legislature by enacting their statute has addressed and has dictated what the public policy is they have said when you have a policy that includes intentional act exclusions there is a limited  in short collects and that right that statute applies across property and casualty insurance we're talking about the specific context of fire insurance and standard fire insurance policy which has the force of law by virtue of the statutory grant to the commissioner of insurance to promulgate regulations and the fact that the commissioner has promulgated regulations so this policy the standard policy does have the force of law as illinois courts have recognized and there is a provision that says that coverage is suspended or restricted while the hazard is increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured the insured not an insured and that addresses the moral hazard problem that chief judge would just raised and brings the standard policy within the normal public policy considerations that prevail in insurance law contexts so that i mean you can limit your policy to the extent that you limit coverage or suspend coverage in favor of an insured whose own intentional conduct increases the hazard which means that if the couple themselves had set the fire they couldn't recover that that's a moral hazard problem that unfortunately you have put into your policy but and fortune that's not what the ports order rates the order or to i know she you know the order below is clearly overbroad over reading the cases but this this is bringing it within the normal confines of insurance law and and you are intentional conduct exclusion is too broad to fit within what illinois laws requires permits in the context of a standard fire insurance policy have to rewrite your policy to include read in light of the grant of authority the statutory grant of authority to the commissioner of insurance maybe don't call it a commissioner here maybe its director but the the head of the insurance you have the director of insurance shall probably write regulations to promote uniformity of policies and it when the director has done so and says there shall be a standard fire insurance policy and here it is and it does have this narrow permissible exclusion for intentional increase of that you know there's a risk there is no exclusion for arson there is no exclusion for intentional acts in the standard fire policy and i would submit that if the legislate the legislature would not have the knack did this statute in one nine hundred ninety eight if it was intent that the standard for actual arson increases the hazard does it i'm sorry an act of arson increases the hazard absolute so it would fall within this language that i just read to you an act of arson suspends coverage so that the if the insured who is trying to collect actually commits the arson they can't collect coverage him or her but if a cohen shirt commits the arson the innocence insurance can collect that's the necessary implication of this language in the stand and i understand the court's position i would simply say that when you look at this statute which wasn't addressed by the court and i don't think it's addressed in these other jurisdictions how do you balance what the legislature has said in that this statute that talks specifically about when an innocent coal ensured election they had to have looked at in funder stood what the interplay between palates it by saying it's extra protection for domestic violence  judgment that this is the only instance in which an insurer may not deny coverage to an innocent how ensured it just shows that the legislator legislature particularly wanted to protect the innocent co insurance in this mom particular instance but how does it show that the legislature considered and rejected other shy actual scenarios including the very one that we have here it just does not to my  w well that the statute says that if a policy excludes intentional loss the that exclusion will not apply when you have this limited circumstances of an broad setting the legislature obviously wanted to take care of the domestic violence victims and so doing so they looked at all right you have policies which have that have intentional loss exclusions and they're saying the husband is throwing all the china at the wife and there's you know maybe it's very valuable china this is a loss or property loss for their you know she didn't do it she's the victim and so th statute allows her to recover if there is that they looked at it and they and there's it's a two step process that has to be a pattern of permanent domestic violence and the perpetrator has a home crisis gets prosecuted and that's fine and you know if you'd circumstances no particular situation that you limit to as what they're arguing in their exclusion as well as in one fifty five right to be and there are cases in which that would certainly be a factual question but for you the stipulation ha it's a stretch to assume that they made all these assumptions in terms of what they did i think it's real simple when you look at the standard higher policy that falls within article twenty three label fire insurance  under certain circumstances and it starts out with the title standard fire policy so michael appraisal so i think the legislative intent this is the best evidence is where they put it in terms of different provisions of the code if they intended to be an amendment it would understood meaning of the statute so i was i might add that i don't think that's a unique philosophy to illinois and we understand that thanks and so again when you look at the language of this statute that addressed a specific curve of the intentional act exclusion the legislature must have intended that they are talking about intentional acts they're talking about potential explanations in the policy and this