we feel that the lease imposes responsibility on the tenant for any and all damages above and beyond the twenty five hundred dollar security deposit and in which section of the lease agreement shows i believe that section three which includes the security deposit section along with the deal back clause that with the tenant and a landlord agreed to that was states that the tenant shall return the permit the demise premises in good condition and any liability for damages to the premises will go above and beyond the twenty five hundred dollars security deposit and from there you you read in front of you yes i read up and in all the images now there are no cases ever gone that far i believe that the dicks case allows you to read different from our case our so as i was saying the general rule and i don't think this can be stressed enough is that and digs in this room or agree with this that own insured or anyone else with co insurance status and one of the courts haven't specifically held that the payment of rent in of itself brings co insurance status of high tenant the dicks court was very specific that not only about the general rule but also in the specific particular facts of the case is what is what i believe the language they used in the specific facts of the case the payment of rent but they really say that they did yes as well as but they did leave open an exception for let's say the party specifically said the limo reason to carry fire insurance the landlord will deal with loss by that causes for any and all damages above and beyond you not of the security deposit twenty five hundred dollars now i would like to have as i know the third district hasn't specifically earlier require the landlord to purchase fire insurance town reality versus schafer it for this your case in two thousand and two is also distinguishable because it required insurance the tenant to carry insurance for personal property not for fire and important for that if some insurance was required of the tenet that would have been part of the lease that other types of insurance would have been included as well it wasn't included the court inferred that it was that he was up for the the complaint based on the defense case in days the supreme court holds that we have to look at the intent of the lease to determine the responsibilities as to who is to have them as i was mentioning the days case says that the core is to look at the least that's the responsibility of the court to look at the least and additionally in the intent of the parts after reading the case law on this i think the intent of the in parties can be inferred from the reasonable expectations of both the ten and the way and more as to what their obligations are under this lease i would suggest that the case law indicates that when it when it runs a piece of property he doesn't have the realistic expectation that he's responsible for providing fire insurance to the least premises i would if i would suggest to the court that they would have it reasonably relies upon the landlord who owns the believe the illinois whether the common law rule applies or whether the courts are getting more towards the implied co insurance rule that we saw in a case from oklahoma called sutton versus john ball that case kind of esta an implied own sure rule which is contrary to the common law which the justice holder view you mentioned so they are in conflict i agree with that but i think what the  case the town case decided in no two goes the farthest in saying that you know see if we have a lease it should be the landlord who should make it clear and beyond question there's a responsibility on the tenant to obtain second sentence or so to to go back and say should be returned in a clean condition which you know generally i would say you know that's what tenants expect the landlords holding on to two thousand five hundred dollars i have to return this in in the same shape that i did last ordinary where tear i would ask how should a tenant know that he has to protect himself from a catastrophic loss based on that provision this claim they're seeking from my client two hundred fifty thousand dollars promised to my hand i think with in the cases i think the case was out to protect the the tenants in these situations killing telling him he has to know that ok he's got his twenty five hundred dollars security deposit at risk but mr callahan you also could be liable for a quarter of a million dollar loss i mean so i think with the only quarter seeing is you know if the wind were going to make that the tenor responsible for you know catastrophic loss then that should be clear to him that he should know that and that's what i think the court's responsibility is is to look at these leases and to say what is the spirit what is the intent there's there's you know our purchase the fire policy so that shows that he intended to cover fire losses because he bought the policy so he went out and he obtained it nationals the intent that dick says that the court should look at it and the other thing too is the insurance company excepted this risk they knew that the people that were occupying ellis rental property is going to be in tenant and that's where that who insured comes in because generally you know interest companies can't sue their own insurers who are generally a homeowner who owns a house and then their reasoning applies in this case because the insurance company who accepts the premium and accept the risk of insuring tenants should be able to go against that tenant for fire losses we were talking about you know strictly drawn case here that's dealing with fire insurance from a practical standpoint it believe the court needs to ask itself how can a tenant go out and purchase fire policy for a premises that it doesn't own i know i was driving in here we have there's many old homes around here the actual probably market value of these homes may be you know let's say just say fifty thousand dollars but what w let's say fifty units in it does the tenant who leases a unit is he responsible for five providing cover for the entire building if you have fifty tenants in an apartment building and then does that apartment building get insured fifty times for let's just say like a million dollars so i mean there's that whole i think that's more along that economic waste analysis in at i don't think that's practical i i  the lease did not address that issue as to fire him because if fire damage is a it's a unique area of the law it's a unique area of insurance and i would be my argument that this lease does not address that situation as to the responsibility for negligently caused fire if the lease is silent then it is up to the interpret the intent of the lease and i believe looking at this lease and based on the body of case law that we have to rely on i would say this sure rule based on the realities we see a lot of that written in the opinions the realities of modern day renting were generally you have landlords having rental property where they intend to put tenants in they go out and they get fire policies like they did in this case and they there are intended the intent there if they go out and get the policies the tenant is there i'll cover the fire responsible for obtaining fire insurance for that i think they have in the law a basis to rely on the landlord change that so i think in this case i believe that the circuit court correctly a lot more of them for them that's crass to dissent to the concurrence but that's not the opinion of the court right and the opinion of the court is that there is a general rule and then you need to look at the lease to make sure that that general rule can apply then you'll give the agenda  that says and which is part of the record he has he has twenty five hundred dollars security deposit and he will be liable for any and all damages of that even which go above and beyond that security deposit i feel that that evinces the intent of the parties unlike any that that of that section or security deposit couple those together i believe that the landlord has a cause of action against the tenant for these damages and therefore do the you know the production of segregation it's insurance company out