drive when gene contacted state farm about settling his claims against the at fault by guns for the respective twenty thousand dollars limits of liability insurance state fund consented to the it informed gene in writing that it was going to set off the amount of the settlement twenty thousand dollars plus one thousand dollars medical payments in each case from the limits up genes und risk coverage state farm with limiting its liability pursue what the statute which it had a right to do but then he receives an award in state farm informs gene we are going to take that set off that we initially took from our limits our liability and now we're going to play it one more time  specific language in the letter saying you want to determine x y z or a b c nobody for example told the arbitrators he had already recovered twenty one thousand dollars so start from twenty one would have said wait a minute these hybrid traders better know how much has been recovered so that they can make a fair assessment of state farm's liability i did not i trusted that state farm  just compensatory damages right yes wrong ok so they're not allowed to recover twice as if this is not a double recovery right now because the policy is and figures if you look at or other security main thing on the under insured motor corp motor vehicle so that means and if the genocide did you raise the issue of ambiguity in the traffic light i did not i only really only raise it here so it's forcing it will be if important issue for the citizens were thousands of citizens of the state of illinois that purchased under insured mortars or risk coverage from insurance carriers and they expect that coverage to fill that gap but state farm was doing here is case how much would your claim receive in each of these separate claims well that's where the the and security the policy problem that i'm asking what if you had your way what would you say that the results of the carrier can turn around and say you know we're going to duck this twice because we can't and that's exactly what happened in this case that's what mr gene and the citizens of the state of illinois that by this type of coverage are being told we can we can take a bite of the upper coming and going in there's nothing you can do about it well there is something we can do about it is the fact that your honor we think that there's a profile for true i would not argue with that but as i said before coming from a court of equate what would be to arbitration the arbitrator say your image is our twenty thousand dollars that's all you get right it's all you get plus the other recovery that you made they can't just take your recovery and that has the under insured more under insured mortars coverage actually yes so in this case jean has one hundred thousand dollars in under insured mortars coverage the fop has twenty thousand dollars state farm has paid a one thousand they state farm the entitle to once more set off that twenty one thousand dollars there is no logical explanation for that it contravenes public policy be sure what are they talking about i think only pocking about the point three thousand dollars from the under insured drivers are they talking about the sum of all damages meaning the monies from the under insured drivers reduce the damages that gene is intended to twice so they limit their liability once by decreasing the coverage and they reduce the damages is he entitled to by using that same reduction other than saying that the policy language and the statute allows him to do so state farm doesn't explain how can this be fair how can this be allowed by statute i think that section eight eighty two is actually referring to the duction in that decision to the monies received from the at fault parties going back again to medical payments work upon worker's compensation payments may be medicare paid but there's nothing that would allow under the public policy of the state in the statute under insured morris coverage that allows state five to take this deduction twice in for them to claim that they are simply not taking eighty duction twice is exactly what this policy provided he got exactly what underage orders statute allows and he got exactly what the supreme or it as hell even in the in the two cases determine what he was entitled to recover from state farm i don't know i wasn't there i'd i'd never s the arbitrator's there but i do i can tell you i'm familiar with who the arbitrators was a retired judge other one is retired  defense attorney and i assume they know of as much about the under insured order statute as i do in what you just said you're right it was probably a very st sumption that they really understood that but policy and this court has held repeatedly then an arbitration award must be construed as enforceable you are now that's a make assumptions to circumvent average traders probably understood because this was an under insured case that mr gene had received money from the under insured motors i think it would be it would be illogical to assume they didn't know that but under illinois  fault of the of the other driver in the amount of damages that mr bustamante sustained and the fact is that's that's exactly what they did in very clear precise language that's what they said they say this every traditional work did exactly what they nineteen thousand dollars and state farm sent mistry seen through his attorney a check for six thousand dollars and that's the end of it that's exactly how the staff should work it's being interpreted in such a way that courts in our legislature have granted insures the right to deny effective under insured more risk coverage to their insurance by manipulating the language and saying that we are entitle to the crease the amount of our liability twice because if they don't take that because it shouldn't be allowed and it hasn't happened as far as i know in my limited experience with these type of cases but not only is it it doesn't go against a statute it in coverage that he bought and paid for doesn't exist and that's what state farm once this court to impress upon all illinois citizens that buy under insured more risk coverage that insurers can do as they wish with the coverage that is ott in paid for your honour's under the facts statute the public policy of the state of illinois this can stand in insure must never be allowed to take to set off on a single occurrence i ask that you reverse the trial court's entry summary judgment in favor