the core now cars case number one one eight zero five eight sean nelson versus donald aren't only enterprise leasing companies chicago is opponent are you ready to proceed if we ready have to compensate injured members of the public in cases like this one where the rental car driver was uninsured and the rental car customer did not purchase optional liability made available in the enterprise contract the legislature posed three options presented three options in chapter nine around the car companies to comply with this required number one what the first option file of liability sure its policy obligating the company to pay judgments against the rental car driver with limits of human limits of fifty thousand dollars per person one hundred thousand dollars that's involving more than cars so this case is about actually three people that were injured so that would be clickable limit under the insurance policy option the third option in the one that we're going to be talking about today is file a certificate of self insurance now a significant of self insurance is issued by the director of the department insurance to those years has always chosen option three it has filed the certificate of self insurance it's belief all through the years is that that obligated it as a self insure the pay the same as if it insurance policy was filed and held in that case that their prices obligation was fifty thousand dollars it was all one plate that's been our understanding since then the law's going out for another ten years our contract the flex that understanding it it provides that if we are required under state law to provide minimal financial responsibility amounts we will do that as a rejected fell hard and help it if a rental car company chooses to file a soft insurers to figure out or the third option under the statute its obligation is a lot not limited to fifty one hundred no matter how many times greater than the required minimum level of protection that judgment might be in this case the judge is six hundred thousand dollars and that's what the first district ultimately held that enterprise oh now there's nothing in chapter nine that says anything like what first just well there's nothing in the self insures option in chapter nine that says a rental car company who follows that option ount as insurer would pay the insurance policy was fine so i guess at best we have if you will an ambiguity by science and it to the extent there is such an take that certificate by showing you can pay a judgment for your own liability if what i've heard might be got sufficient assets to do that lease you satisfy the record that you do now when you get over to chapter we're not talking about liability of the selfish or enterprise is not liable under any common law theory in this case they are innocent in boller if you will the only liability we're talking about is the live believe the rental car driver and so in that case the legislature has said if you want to be in the business you've got to put something up there to protect the public some minimal level of protection so naturally if you've satisfied it enterprise assume a two million dollars financial responsibility for third party life billet he claims by listing the amount in itself sure it's application well self insurance application for the public in the case of a driver like this shirt in a rental car whatever price otherwise has no liability is there any sensible reason that they would have ever wanted to say well if you go options free it's a had up to now the fellow or several there's no limit petion like there is for writing as for self insurance so we think it's fifty one hundred but here we don't have that issue here where everybody agrees our vision is one hundred dollars this if you get hit by a rental car that's covered by itself insurance certificate you've got a liability to collect but if you're hit by a road car company that opted for one or two your cap in one hundred thousand dollars  what would be the logical reason that they would not want to give equal treatment at least consistent treatment under all three of these options we for all practical purposes mean if that was the a reasonable the legislature every hint of that but if they did that would bring us to a whole other issue that i don't think you're going to have it but if you do statute that imposes vicarious liability on a real car company or injuries caused by a third person's operation of the rental vehicle as long as the rental car company was not negligent or guilty of any other prong do slave that's what it is that's how we define it we impose liability and you didn't do anything wrong seabees clause will apply to statutes that require a minimum level of coverage for the driver by an insurance policy up by self insurance for any other financial and it provides no indication that the legislature intended to post any such plan as a result of better prices liability has to be limited it must be limited or so into the terms of the really gre relevant states its responsibilities limited to the likable minimum state financial responsibility amounts however again we run into a problem because there are no minimum safe financial responsibility amounts in the illinois that what do you think it means the language in the rental agreement what does it mean if it doesn't mean what mr griffin argued but i think it's confusing i think it's going to fusing when there are different obligations that could mean it could be fifty thousand dollars because i just want to be clear about my question i mean precisely based on the language in the rental agreement because you said it should be based on the language of the rental agreement scuse me if i misstep my position limit its responsibility minimums provided by law and there are that illinois law that apply to self insured around our company that would make sense if they had purchased a policy of insurance or abide but in the context of self insurance there are no minimum supply in terms of protecting consumers why would the legislature intend that some crash victims would get better coverage depending on what type of rental car company owns the car i think the legislature clearly was intended in ensuring that the public is protected so that they have compensated for their injuries and the legislature gave the real car companies the right of our companies like  driver is better off if they get you by somebody that self insured then they are if they get hit by somebody that's covered by insurance why would the why in the world would that better protected soonest well i think there are several clearly the intent of the legislature and it's fair the car companies that used to be self insured are saving the expense of purchasing insurance policies and therefore there they should also have to  why would they put their the music choice if it was going to open up unlimited amounts player i think at this point we don't really have enough evidence in the record in a citation proceeding to know what the true economic consequences are clearly enterprise saved a lot of money by being self insured they may still be ahead by subjecting themselves to potential and limited liability in those few cases where the judgments are going to be very in most instances the amounts of judgments are sufficiently low that they're still going to that's still going to be a viable option for them we really don't know on this record is the focus of this statute legislative history or any case that said the financial responsibility laws are and acted to protect the right up our companies or the insurance companies or ensure that they're free to eventually in fact the parts have said the opposite the financial responsibility laws are not for the purpose of protecting the rental car companies the primary focus of the legislative intent list protect the public and they did so by ensuring at least a minimum if the are not part of a chooses to go over and above recognized done ity and a clearly defined consequence consequence that is those designated as self insures within the content text of compulsory liability insurance statutory mandates so from and there would be no need for the legislature to pose a minimum by the end of responsibility limit because the rental car company has that us by the department of insurance that they're capable of paying anything as a result there was simply or any basis at all for enterprises position that the seven five zero two liability only applies to its direct that glistens if that were the case we would have the observers sell or judgments against drivers of rental cars  rail car companies have absolutely no obligation to pay judgments against the drivers of their own cars even though the legislature mandated that the truth to the department of insurance that they're financially responsibility to pay those  he's the member of the public that these financial responsibility laws are intended for cash the twenty five thousand dollars that enterprise claims as a batsman financial responsibility it owes him after paying other expenses that even come close to paying his damages if enterprise prevails after the liens are paid show into the health care services lien actually would be received at most about seventy five hundred dollars on a six hundred thousand dollars judgment this court may properly consider not only the sta court that's fair and reasonable from which is medical bills or other persons injured by and for grown up part drivers will receive fair and reasonable compensation enterprise will continue to be a multibillion dollar company it nelson is only going to receive about a percent of the judgment he was awarded and he'll likely be sued for the balance of his medical bills numerous persons will be in similar situations and their fall in motor vehicle accidents with numerous people who are injured and the rental car companies will simply continue to enjoy the cost savings francis cost saving benefits of being self insured the interests of nelson and other driving public in this case far some of these terms and conditions violate illinois law if it requires that the vehicle not be driven by a person that is impaired by alcohol or drugs with or without a prescription that it not be driven by a person other than additional pri drivers without enterprise's prior written consent which in this particular case they stated on the base of the contract no other driver permitted they prohibited from being driven other than other than states that reflected in the rental agreement financial responsibility by inserting a number of broad sweeping conditions additionally to contractual provision that reports to limits liability  additionally it's our position that allowing enterprise to contractually limit its financial responsibility in the face of nine one zero one seven five zero two it for buyers insurance any judgment violates illinois law and public policy particularly true where enterprises represented to the department of insurance in order to obtain its certificate of self insurance every came the risk of third party are liability claims up to two million dollars essentially receiving  itself insurance plan under the john deere insurance company vs allstate case as the dealership was bound by the certificate of insurance which had a higher minimum then john here claimed that enterprise should be bound by the statements made in its financial documents submitted in its application for insurance as a result the entire provision in section seven reporting the limit enterprise's financial responsibility should be  owners by reason of being the owner of the well eleanor does not pose a liability by reason of being the owner of the feedlot imposes financial responsibility enterprise chose to comply with that financial responsibility by becoming self responsibility statues that said if you don't post sufficient insurance you're liable for more and each of the courts said no we can do that we can't do that you can't impose a liability on the