them to take money out of a new of these that they had with pacific life and invest that money in products that he described as trust accounts and guaranteed investment certificates or get x in doing so he misrepresented to the plaintiff that they would accrue interest on these products and that their money would be safe and liquid at all times and because the plaintiffs had a history of investing through pacific life they they believed that these products were being purchased in conjunction with pacific life the second issue that's addressed in both the claims against pacific life and american general is that in regard to both the  and purchase american general policies he also in regard to g d p error she mr gillette misrepresented to the plaintiffs that they had too much money invested in certain american general policies and that the only thing that they could do was to use those those funds to purchase policies for g p s employees so based on these misrepresentations g p s purchased five american general policies for their employees with the exception of pacific life products and that's how you would treat it even though civic life as an insurance company he wasn't selling these products only as insurance products he was selling them as investment products and for their investment value and he would life they would receive correspondence and statements from pacific life said you know if you have questions about your policies contact your representative know july so based on all the circumstances the plaintiffs believed that they rather they're trying to hold american general responsible for their agent who was soliciting them to convert other policies to american general which obviously american general benefit by doing this  investments they believed they were investing in conjunction with pacific life that was money that was coming out of one pacific life policy that they had and being used to invest in these gigs and trust accounts and these gimmicks are common  investment terms in insurance products and so it's not unreasonable that our clients would believe that never let was selling them an additional pacific life product i mean they had a history of doing that he would tell them you know i've got a better product that provides better interest a better investment for you and and they would transfer from money to that new policy and in the more's the morse transferred money and i believe in two thousand and one y as i stand here i don't know specifically what nevin gillette told them regarding that annuity but do they knew that they were buying an annuity through him through pacific life are those the kinds of if and he didn't tell them that they were buying it and gig product or a trust account depending on the plaintiffs and they you know based on their history based on the apparent agency the way to  believed that they were investing in conjunction with a civic life and i think this case is very similar to the case of wabash versus king and wills insurance company which is out of the i d the customers to purchase a certain ensurance policy and that he converted the premiums for his own use this case really is no different than that i mean ted was he made misrepresentations to these plaintiff and based on his misrepresentations that they were investing in this this good can trust account the plaintiffs gave him funds to invest and he converted it far's for his own use just as in the wall mash case where the court looked at how that the agent was held out by by advertisements by business cards by prior legitimate dealings you know all of that in this case i mean the importantly these plaintiffs were given statements and confirmations from pacific life in regard to their products that would say you know your representative business in july if there's questions if you you know if you want to take out a new pacific life so i think there's enough allegations of a parent agency to support the plaintiff's claims and in what your honor was asking as far as the specific allegations  nineteen point one as a combined the two six fifteen portion of their motion to dismiss primarily addressed the agency issue the fraud claims and the negligent supervision claims  insufficient pleadings and then the two six nineteen portion primarily addressed their motion to compel arbitration yet the court then dismissed the entire suit under two six nineteen  yeah we're asking the court to reverse the trial court's dismissal and if your honor signed that under two six fifteen that it should have been properly granted they'd be remanded and we'd be allowed to him in the complaints  this case or these two cases where one of i think about eighteen other sr cases where the court heard heard motions to dismiss and in many of those other cases he he granted to six fifteen motions but he did allow us to leave to amend and in those cases that we've amended some of them there have been additional motions but under several of those the defendants have answered so i think in order to stay consistent with the trial court's rulings in those other cases that are actually identical to these cases that it would be proper to to remain and with leave to amend the complaint i think the dismissal with prejudice was an improper ruling those products would earn certain interest rates and that they would at all times be safe and liquid which ultimately none of this was true but we did make specific allegations as to that likewise in regard to american general  it's the civically alleged the dates as to when this twisting and turning took place for the calls that took place in two thousand and three and for the wars it took place in one thousand nine hundred ninety and it's physically alleged which policies which policies were transferred into the other policies so i think all of these allegations are specific enough to support our base claims and i think the pla also sufficiently alleged that the defendants have knowledge of mr gillette's conduct i mean as he as the principle for this agent his conduct is imputed to to pacific life and to american general and they should have known what was going on had they gone in and audited the files taken a look at things they would have seen these statements and trust account statements right along with their their pacific life statements and their american general statements and also because of the pattern or because of the history here and we're not talking to single cases these were two of thirty some plaintiffs that he was doing this to so there was a way i did i believe there are two separate entities i know they're they're both represented by the same council but they are two separate entities and now the gillette was licensed during different periods of time with each pacific life and american general was in the listen as i stand here i'm not positive on the answer to that i do know that as far as his dealings with our clients at pacific life products were earlier products and then later he started soliciting them to purchase their merican general products so he may have still been licensed with pacific life at that time he was selling american general policies thank you thank you good afternoon my name is back you often i represent pacific life insurance company and american general life insurance company two of the defendants that plaintiff collectively referred to as the insurance and the common time in those thirty some cases my clients i represent to answer your question your honor american general and pacific are both separate insurance companies i represent both of them in this case a secure of registered securities salesman for a number of different broker dealers with respect to the insurance company defendants who i represent we have four of these cases american g no was involved in four  thirty two cases up pacific was also involved i believe in four of the thirty two cases if you look at each one of these cases it was not a long history of investments of replacements of policy churning of believed that it was a pacific life policy or that it was a purpose of a great product or that it was an american general product when they were convinced to liquidate those products to purchase these other forms these other investment funds there's money they took from american generals policy on that were being used to fund other investments made in conjunction with pacific life for american general i don't know what that means i think it's  nonsensical i think it's nonsensical in this case where they make the exact same allegation with respect and done with respect to all the of the broker dealers and all the other insurance company defendants so who it is something that you know he would convince them to liquidate their redoubled investments to protect of life we don't represent through one of my clients through you know other investments they had he would convince them to take those funds and invest in these  cop policy over here with the same investment that they had that they were just kept making additional investments and the and they funded these investments prior to buying my client's products and afterwards again they may be in a democrat will allegation in respect everybody else with respect to protect of life that they believe that it was made in conjunction with with can protect of life's products  demand a go through every single file he hands including investments that have nothing to do with some of this allegation that we knew or should have known because we had the ability not ot that what do they fear big with respect to replacements to go to the replacement what what was it wasn't bad you know the premiums were better and this also it wasn't that this policy or this product is going up that is going to suit your investment needs better it's going to give you greater return those are the kind of allegations that you see in these what it says we don't want to cash out of your of your investment we want all of our money back there's nothing in it that my clients can do except for sending him direct communication that says you know you need to look at this you need to contact your agent which i submit was not in july but if they want their money back we can't hold that money we can't keep them from the wor gillette and again it wasn't you know that i have to this it really was with my colleague it wasn't a long history it wasn't that they had a long history of investing with with you what we were involved first like to address the last thing that's wrong is talking about in regard to the eight other cases and as a matter briefly these were the only two cases that were dismissed with prejudice these are the only two pieces that have been appealed the others are still alive in front of the court so there are different additional allegations that have come to light since the filing of the day that can be added to these complaints you're asking about the supervision and the churning and what should've come to their attention that would have alerted them to this turning of the policies nemanja lad was a member of  group called insurance designers american general and pacific life contracted with insurance designers and under that contract if he kept a policy for a year he would get one hundred twenty percent of that first year commission life annuity in two thousand and one he kept it for about fourteen months which we've learned is is the triggering point and then he solicited then to take a loan out to invest in this gig that was a common practice in not only these cases but other cases so i think there are additional allegations that that could be raised this of course at least giving us an opportunity to amend the complaint there's another a number of different insurance companies and a number of different broker dealers involved here and that is true and under illinois pleadings we are allowed to make alternative pleadings against different defendants now to allege they did the same allegations have been made against each defended isn't exactly true even in this specific counts for each defendant we have we've pulled out the facts that are specific that is that and that and the allegations in the claims that are being raised against that defendant so for instance he may have been with one broker during dealer for a period of time and were holding them liable for investments that occurred during that time frame now in these cases he was with pacific life for a period of time he was being held out as their representative and so in regard to pacific life we're holding him responsible for those those funds that were taken out of the plane of specific of communal pleading or or pleading the same allegations against each defendant and we have insisted as to the various defendants  and i think fairly the most important thing here is that never in july i was acting as their representative i know they they want to get out of it on the grounds that this is somehow side products that they were purchasing them t court the court reasoned as to why they held the insurance company liable they reasoned that when it wouldn't one puts another in a position in that capacity that that allows them  to make such misrepresentations they should then be allowed to deny liability for that conduct and that's exactly what's happened here pacific life but never in gillette canonization to be able to make misrepresentations to convert the pla funs american general and put him in a position to be able to say to twist insurance policies and those companies should now be allowed to say that they're not liable for his conduct they should and watching over what he  look at the facts that policies would be twisted after her child after fourteen months or that if you looked at all of his insurance products as a whole there were several cases where money was being pulled out