it's called the first case sets forth a requirement for owners or heeded those such as enterprise provide proof of insurance they're given three different options to do so purchase of a liability insurance policy a bond or self insurance it also requires payments of any judgment within thirty days after it becomes final i don't specifically providing those minimums for bonds or insurance policies the vehicle code does not provide any clickable those who elect to be self insured this is no gap no oversight it's simply a recognition as to the nature of health insurance and when a self insure there is no minimum financial responsibility amount which a bond or an insurance policy would be issued enterprises liability however is regulated by flash seven dash five zero two the vehicle code that section requires the department of insurance defined the enterprise as an applicant to be self insured is possess and will the ability to pay judgments against it again but that specifying any minimum or maximum amount so it is a clickable to also insurers and it requires payments of any judgement against any person covered by the certificate and arising out of the accident in which the motor vehicle covered was involved within thirty days as recognized by this oregon hertz versus garrett the financial responsibilities statutes of playable the rental car companies merely prescribe minimum amounts that agency must meet those to condemn it conduct business it in no way imposes a maximum amount enterprise island terribly elected to become self insured in doing so it was required to submit an application to the department of insurance demonstrating the requirements i set forth earlier in the application enterprise admittedly represented to the department of insurance that it retained the risk of loss up to two million dollars per occurrence and third had purchased a liability policy or a bond it certainly could have easily limited its exposure to the minimum financial responsibility amount set forth and chapter nine as eleanor a liberal he's choosing to be s  sure was there anything that you're aware of that they could have done to it so forth with their bad schoolboy ability would be it's our position your honor that as enterprise chose to be insured that attempts to limit its exposure and contract or the rental agreement as it attempted to do so would violate public policy there are several public policy reasons we feel this such attempts to limit their exposure however contrary to the representations made to the state once a judgment creditor of one of its drivers attempts to collect a judgment against that or prize they litigate litigate litigate and attempt to avoid paying anything but the bare minimum that they could have been restricted to had they simply purchased a policy of insurance in those representations we think enterprise certainly should be a stop as a matter of public policy further we think that i in the context of minimum financial responsibility laws such as the one set issue i cited in the brief purses and our prices are in a car midwest it's our position that nelson has a statutory beneficiary of enterprises obligations to pay judgments under the minimum financial responsibility laws inactive by the state of illinois and therefore any contract show restrictions are not binding on nelson although they may be binding on  it till we have a judgment unlike the case in power versus outworn we gave notice to enter cries at the emotion of fergie fault and the d thought judgement they were aware of the proceedings they could have come and intervened and protected their interests prior to judgement we did it that way because it's perceived really correct in the state of illinois and not in any attempt to be collusive or circumvent enterprise's right to come in and defend certainly could have chosen to do so is there  well and i believe what i have said was that no this was a minor policy requirement that could be excused and half it was not excused because in that case the attorney expressly assume the obligation to notify the ensurance company of the suit we complied with that obligation and therefore notify the insurer or enterprise the not insurer so i'm sorry either through time or other events is  i believe that separate action would still be timely i believe that he would i believe that there would be five years so i think a direct action would still be timely against enterprise and i'm a terrible time keep and trying to limit liability in our old contract that the average person would also find that language ambiguous and it should be construed in favor of coverage for an innocent third party and against enterprise who have offered the contract  we also take issue with the argument the enterprise makes the five slash seven only to judgments against enterprise for direct liability if that were the case enterprise would have  liability as a self insure because it would be liable only in the event of a direct action because it was negligent either in providing a defective vehicle running to and qualified driver or if it were an employer agent  enterprise causing the accident additionally we think that this does not violate the grapes and then meant it's clear under the graves amendment that financial responsibility laws like that in acted by the state of illinois are expres excluded from the preemptive effect of the graves act and therefore we believe that enterprise is responsible for the entire judgment in this case under these facts and had a choice elect to become self insured and for recording purposes that perhaps he should include are generally for personal autos this court well knows we have mandatory insurance in illinois we strive to put all the vehicles on the road with a twenty forty limit and with respect to  cars illinois is one of the few states that has decided to get in the ronald scheme we have to lift that from twenty forty to fifty one hundred so in illinois we have a higher limit and that is really for the purpose of the consumer so that if you have a run a car on the street and to comply with the insurance code under section nine characters they have absolutely not ash want to one is the only section that is sort to comply with respect to being a guarantor or an indemnity tour of a customer's liability when you're dealing with a renter or an additional in driver or another party the liability that the enterprise chaos soley as an owner of the vehicle it's not insurance for say but you are sued as the promising to give minimum limits to the accident or to the car the only way you can do that is under nine want to one at sac which requires ten sections you have to look at very carefully in those three sections they talk about three options one would be the policy which wouldn't consider seventy five or two to be connected right seventy five zero two is a red herring seventy five of two has actually nothing to do with peel council indicates that this case is all wrapped up under seven five two but if we're under seven five and two there is not even a turnover health as a self insure that city that person can be sued directly that person has liability when there is a case against enterprise enterprises promised and told the legislature and not scuse me the certificate to the department of insurance that we have health this is what it said typically throughout the united states when we have judgments against us we have typically two million dollars there are a bomb that we have three million dollars and goes on to talk about other kinds of insurance so the court should take a look at the financials the council's arguing traditionally a stops enterprise because that was really just a representation of its house to do business in the state as an out south insured when it gets sued and if you take a look at the certificate which is in the record all it really says is that we've the stone upon enterprise the right to work as a self insured entity so this or chip or kid has to do with section seven five o two which has three requirements which say there the plaintiff and the defendant are covered covered under what the certificate that doesn't mention this isn't a declarations page this doesn't cover the loss this doesn't cover an accident this doesn't cover a person all enrich this plaintiff who is a foreigner loper and come after us when we don't have a policy we don't have a body and it's certainly not a certificate of self insurance because if that's the case they get zero so the only thing retains a substantial portion of the risk of loss and then it goes on to say it typically retains up to two million dollars per occurrence basis in the natanz about three million dollars that are deductible it talks about that this is it the policy right but they represent that they can meet the minimum which in this case is fifty one hundred but do they also imply that they can also mean something more than a minute but they choose not to be and that's why you have to look at the russian did you do it now it's not your honor respectfully because the ronald agreement is wherever all roads lead is to the ronald reagan when you run a vehicle you have the option to purchase insurance if you choose not to purchase insurance then you lie on your own personal auto policy to be first and then the rental car scheme the second illinois has won since one thousand nine hundred eighty s hold that it is not against public policy for any run of vehicle to be secondary as long as the fifty one hundred so why did this court in datsun imply it was a fifty thousand per person when there is no discussion of fifty and the bond it's only one hundred it's because historically it's fifty one hundred because it was raised from twenty forty because those are minimum limits around the country you have to have it per person and you have to have a worker and so they raised it to fifty one hundred so datsun which dealt with the bond howell that the minimum limit was fifty then we get insurance car rental case which is the third district then we should follow and every one of those cases the court scotts fifty one hundred is the scheme for the south insured there was a supplemental policy that was voided and you went back theoretically to the fifty one hundred so this all reaches up threshold in fall power because not we have the exact issue being argued and very well reasoned by the court which looked at not section nine which looked at the language of a rational agreement which looked at the legislative intent and said common sense is we're not singling out self insured company has paid no attention has done it completely said seven five or two had no place in this because they agreed that seventy five up to doubt with judgments against enterprise not judgments against customers because when you contract with your customer they have an option to get a million dollars if you take a look at section seventeen of the ronald remit when this is over and you have a chance to review it again before rendering a decision it specifically says you have a million combined limit if you want to purge the insurance you will get nine hundred fifty thousand above for matter the amount higher and we will maintain fifty under financial responsibility why would we bestowing insurance for a million dollars if our coverage the scheme is fifty one hundred that is all it says in the ronald agreement it says the owner's obligation to some limited to be applicable minimum state financial responsibility  the state's financial responsibility amount is fifty hundred in real cases where there is a bond whether it's a traditional policy or self insurance you can only look to ninety ash want to one at sec now if you take a look more carefully at my dish want to certificate and it's a nine one ten we're taught about penalties so this is the section that discusses all three now maybe discreetly the legislature whether it was oversight or not i didn't have any reason to discuss the certificate being fifty one hundred because there is no real instrument that had to be filed and had to be given notice that needed cancellation requirements so base discuss the bond in a few sections and then they go and discuss the liability insurance but then they come right back and one or nine in ten to discuss off three so the self insured certificate that's at issue in this case and the one that we need to look at is fifty one hundred and if you look at the ronal and the amount seventy five thousand of the hundred thousand thousand went through one of the injured twenty five to another and they're offering twenty five thousand to the claims before the action filed your honor the parties were in an inner plater type situation before the court when you say that we can't know what is of course we had not as we enter pleaded or put the money before judge white he basically before the six hundred thousand dollars judgment this was already fully  argued he said and you agreed with us that all we always fifty one hundred and so light solomon he was trying to figure out how to do it but he was paid to the more injured party twenty five to one twenty five to the other after council rejected it and said i'm going rent cars at lower rates no i didn't i don't believe i've argued that i said that i said i do think they are because there is something surance in the competitive market we can have certain lower rates so that the insurance so that the runner companies can't compete in a way so yes that is one of the basis for our being self insured we also give them the option of buying a collision waiver of a personal protection for disability and a million dollars worth of limit and if they choose it they get a duty to defend they get one hundred million dollars and now we owe them a million if they choose not to which is what most of the decisions that i've cited in our brief said he should for the rather can choose not to rely on minim the decision isn't mine to be made but i do believe that they would have to appeal this to the supreme court obviously but that's that's not leaving the state right but i do think that dumb i don't know what they would do truthfully and i don't think they should have to buy insurance or a bond none of them have because they got them for ten to fifteen years and have decided that the self insurance scheme is far better and works for their benefit to the customers and this is what they've chose this is what they've chosen to do not just our products and this is going up health why does my dash want to say you can get a certificate of self insurance and then you're telling them they can't so they have three choices under section nine and your time they can only pick one and two because somehow they've been singled out which is what judge the dissent said until our they've been singled out because they're not buying insurance and i mean when  honor i believe that the court should have from the judge's turn over order which would be twenty five thousand dollars without interest and costs and i would like to respond just briefly to a question that you said about access liability there has never been a case in illinois where the insurer or the enterprise or any carrier owes more work than minimum limits because of an access liability theory they only are the minimum limits they don't all because of quote the at face or libya field that is one of the other reasons that they choose to self insure is because they are not traditional under the insurance code they're not subject to olympia fields they don't have you i mean you i am they all host of reasons for soft insurance but you have all risk insurance every drivers and this isn't an authorized driver mind you so to make this finding we're in the past the courts have held for unauthorised drivers we'll give them fifty one hundred but now you're giving them unlimited i mean this really does turn the scheme on it bottle thing i would just like to point out that all of the companies are self insured now obviously the rental car companies have found a cost effective way to avoid paying claims for injuries caused by the use of the rental cars by avoiding purchasing the insurance policies or the bonds and to allow that continue has tremendous public policy implications for the state of illinois and the finance for fox ability allows for an active to protect the