the only part of that sentence that is not objectively verifiable as false is the word however everything else is a total fa and the defendants know what they know because they have testified that remove all installation of trim is required to do a proper job and yet their policy is to not include death yes we are maybe two or three people here are not old enough to remember but there are other people that are old enough to remember a failed franchise called earl sho it was the home of the thirty nine ninety five p job for a car is no longer exists because what how they would do that with they would not remove and reinstall from them instead they would slap tape over the name plate the chrome they wouldn't remove anything and then paint the car and eventually the franchise went out of business because people gradually came to realize it is not worth thirty nine ninety five is paint job with my  the pay shipping off because it doesn't seal with the trim and it's not a proper way to fix a car country mutual knows that to but that's what they do they also don't include blending soundproofing corrosion protection  which the players who testified as necessary for proper repair they also say they've taken great care in preparing the estimate how this is a person in a social and literal context here  the reality is if one doesn't know and they don't open the trunk isn't accessible they don't open the trunk don't even look inside in fact in one of the instances mentioned in the brief the appraiser it was in fact think about when they're the appraiser is giving the vehicle owner if i let her go along with an estimate that says most shops agree to complete the repairs the amount of our estimate in reality in many many cases which are cited in our brief he judge the appraiser is saying to himself there is no shop in the world will repair the car this amount and they so whether it's a statement or opinion of fact there's three elements to look at whether the statement has a precise and readily understood meaning all parts and services that's pretty well understood all parts and services more shops are completed for this estimate that's pretty well understood the second thing you look at is whether the statements literary or social context indicates it contains facts you're trying to convince this person  there are several ways there's not just one way of proving damages now there's two counts here one isn't tensional interference with business and it has if you read the elements there is no requirement that a specific transaction be proven also restatement of torts has no specific the only the only cases and each and every case that mentions there's a specific you have to show a specific personal los business is founded on a case that never said that there is no case that isn't on a foundation of quicksand there is no case that says he can can relate back to an actual case that says you have to have a specific person who is harmed many cases are proven by losses by and over are all loss of business and in this particular case during a time the false statements the false body shop letters the false estimates the suggestion of the plaintiff's shocks were dishonest and you remember from the brief people said you know they used parts that are needed they cheat on other things don't go order they're just what we don't know or take your bar somewhere else  law all these suggestions are going on i can name auto body business with insurance and claimants of country with from twenty one point nine percent to nine point one percent gas auto body business with insurance and claimants we from thirty five point three percent to nineteen point three percent has on page thirty seven of my three an american auto body business with insurance and claimants went from one thousand point two to seven point four  but everything about these businesses including the affidavits of the owners is they were doing everything else the same this is a percentage of business from all of their revenue so everybody that comes in from state farm from everybody else and private business the percentage of business from the people that are perpetrating these lies has gone down dramatically i'm there ther which i point out in my brief and that's supreme court problems the supreme court has given us guidance i'm not what kind of damages are admissible in that case there wasn't one theater owner that said i don't go to this theater because there was a bad smell no want they've the supreme court said it's her miscible to apportion damages based upon loss of gross earnings they didn't consider anything else taxes cost of doing business nothing revenue we're doing it on who considering the percentage loss based upon this that is going about ten steps further than the funeral is did in the stands case which the supreme court said is the proper way of doing damages that case has not been reversed it's the law on illinois so i think that we're bound by that and that is another way of proving damages now the question is the question is that's correct that all the cases i cited books walk in and the other ones are alt we're going to dismiss big pop that being said you have to have a prime official case in order to se anyway right but that's different than hey show you have a habit well you know you have to state a claim you have to state a claim you have to show some damage and i believe we have shown it and we have shown it to create some kind of framework from which damages can be calculated and whether those the jury may say or judge me say you know what i think there's other factors say i don't accept it you're going to get and there were kind of the same thing here this is a summary judgment case although for a long time the judge ruled that we had the evidence we had everything we needed to have and then switched his mind two weeks before the trial or less than two weeks before the trial and certainly has that right but you could tell original he wasn't sure he decided the case in our favor for a long time and and the defense has no answer to the scha is having labs case that i saw in there is no adequate answer to that supreme court case that says you know if we just show a gross loss and income and all these false statements go to trial shop statements these these people are doing work is not required they're cheating you say points are being made so all we we have an issue with the  intentional interference because of the specific some of those cases which if you read them you're see i'm right they're all based on parkway bank that did never said you have to have a specific cas e but it certainly is a strong argument for the defense in the intentional interference case it's nor even in the in the consumer fraud case because a consumer fraud case does not require that all the all the elements of the tort of intentional interference require is a tensional a reason why expectation of business country's knowledge of experts expectancy which they obviously knew they were giving these is all driven by profit and we know that because one of their former employees robert canal said hey this whole thing was profit driven he used to be an adjuster he was above the appraisal level he was an adjuster and he said hey way and then we pick off ten or fifteen people who thought it was more important to get involved in somebody else's lawsuit than going to work yeah maybe we get a few people who say that not enough to justify standing here today maybe we get five six thousand dollars and people would say that there's not enough to justify there's no way to undo the lives other than to figure damages based upon what our percentage losses been with these companies over these exact same time if their lies were being perpetrated against these companies there's just no way other way to do it financially and economically reasonable so yes there were there was a strategy do that could we have gotten a few people yeah we probably couldn't fact in the brief there are some people that say that they took their business away because and because of this because of what was said but not enough to justify  sure i don't mean that our jury may have to question jury may say well i don't think i'm going to give in damages because i want to see more evidence but i think the case if some real case i'm damages it's similar to this case says no i don't have to do that and that's that's there's really no answer to that case  so not sure how much time i have left i got a light on here that's all so odd so here's what i would say on the second count of the consumer fraud deceptive business practices act there is absolutely no requirement it's not even arguable that i have to show specific people that were damaged that's not a part of that law and there's no cases that i know so i think that we've shown the elements the elements on the case law that actually is accurate it hasn't been picked up by a word processor and repeated a mistake ten times i think we have shown the elements of both parts but and finally every plaintiff has a right to show their prove their case by circumstantial evidence it is circumstantially extremely strong evidence if he's body shops all lost the tremendous revenue percentage they lost over the exact same period of time that these lies  which also requires damages resulting from interference it's the same type of element he still has to show that there was lost business here and they cannot identify the plaintiffs were able to do it they testified that they didn't know of a single customer they lost because of this one letter not a one on one they also were going to have twenty eight customer witnesses come into the courtroom in testified that they at they made a choice and i don't know what the strategy choice was but if it goes to the circumstantial evidence you can't have circumstantial evidence of a nonevent to prove an event you can't have circumstantial evidence that all points of the back that people stayed to prove that people didn't stay and that's the failed plot to bring those people in the courtroom when it comes to this proximate cause so what we're left with isn't spurred and expert who assumes liability and the fact of damages and all we're doing is doing this math after so that compares the percentage of country mutual business  whether large repair job whether something was declared a total loss what it would affect the business what you got from a particular ensure that their acts were controlled for those variables didn't do anything didn't didn't account reports and pollution jule see that mr can abel's business from other sources which skyrocket he was doing great the reason he was doing great was that he had become a  participant in a direct repair program from state farm shape arms to the a big company on the block so his business is skyrocketing meanwhile his factory mutual business isn't going down stay in pretty much where we sat it's actually slightly it's got nothing to do with the tortious conduct but all of that under this damage is claimed to be damages it's all it's all damages even though we're going to what mr won the lottery he was able to increase a business and because he increased his business from other sources he increased his damages that's that's the result of that that's the anomaly in and then that that sort of anomaly that exists here another good more than it's so only when they wanted to increase damages that consider the other factors they simply didn't do anything but those factors now that the the schatz case  case got nothing to do with tortious interference not a tortious interference case so the idea that we're going to find something about a specific identity of the lost customers and going to be present in that is not a money back that impacted their revenue and certainly would have been damages by itself so yeah there were people there were and it's it's completely different here where we don't have an identity and yet we end up now with the damage claim of one point four million dollars that's going to be presented and when you consider that that it's a lost profits plane that's yet apparently we can't we can't see it we can't touch it we don't know who it is but it stops it that best shows you how ludicrous this damage claim was because at the end of the day you couldn't  of this what is just a map exercise to the conduct of the defendants and for that reason they don't show damages resulting from the interference they don't show damage they don't show damages proximately caused able to show that there their intake went down there probably down where is the garages here their profit didn't necessarily go down except for this analysis this math calculations that they're doing with respect to country w costumes i think the law is pretty clear here this strategy choice was made in the face of there being no illinois case ever which it said you didn't have to identify specific parties at the summary judgment stage  just any contact that we don't like that you're doing out there in the marketplace it's purposeful interference that prevents the reasonable expectancy from right getting into  relationship it's not just any old interference it's interference that causes the losses of business that causes that person to go somewhere else it's an essential part of the tour and there are just a total failure of proof on it and and it it to me i think they consciously decided that they weren't going to do it that way but they did it that way in the face of this alum and and in the face of what i think is pretty clear illinois case law about how this is it is to be him so i think quickly is the case that that really announces that if you put all of these cases in these pockets of motion to dismiss cases and summary judgment cases it fits that way and i i think it's pretty clear that once we got to trial they were going to need to do that and identify a single person who didn't come to them because a formal letter now that may be and mr mr beeman yanks two sentences out but he carefully does not go through the entire latter interesting letter sad because after all this is supposed to be something that steering people away here's what sas we do not have a preferred service provider and you are free to select any repair facility to perform these repairs it's just the ops the f b i staring letters so you can go anywhere you want to go it doesn't say you have to go here it doesn't say you have to go there and suggest people go anywhere else and we do when deciding this issue this is that the theory is that business was steered away by combination of country mutual asked of men of former latter and then the higher asked and letters are very careful to say there could be errors there could be additional accident related damage and it in intelligence what's the process in the event that happens you work with your repair shop they talk to the insurance company and then there's an agreement a supplemental amount that's that sounds like the estimate could be revives absolutely what what what could happen in the letter talks that it's still it's enough hint it's not actionable opinion and the letter doesn't change that at all so do these two these are sentences change or no because these two sentences when re in this entire context are just rod generalized expressions of subjective expressions of modern opinion they're a kenyan about opinions i mean think about the words that are being use gr these things are matters of opinion and they are non actual and judge kavanaugh was absolutely right to grant a partial summary judgment on that piece of their theory none of the first the not definite two they are also an opinion them sops the fact that certain repairs like the removal installation of trim and other items were not included are estimates the reason for that is quite simple not all repair shops perform those supplement and then finally this idea that there were amounts in estimates versus final bills we were going to have a trial literally hundreds of exhibits where an initial estimate was apps and the final bill was greater and that was supposed to be some indication that this is all cost but that after the fact analysis is absolutely meaningless in may thank you i think that mr heinrich was doing pretty good until he tried to pass off the idea that these are opinions when they're false ones you can have an estimate including the value of a building and know that the building has structural problems and not put that in your estimate and that's what happened here they knew things were false and they put in the  all you know down in the small print down after we tell you they are we've done a thorough investigation and you win through a red light and we know from our investigation that you with her red light but you know what if you want to if you want to c talk about it you can but you still what you've done is had a false would to start with zooming in with a green light and then you try to through legal ease try to get out of a case we have shown damages whether or not those damages would be accepted is up to the trier of fact that is normally the way cases are handled and that should be the way it's handled in this case he talks about variables look at the variables in the in the chance case they had no evidence as to possible wages paid tax rates or other costs of doing business there was no evidence of what pictures were being shown when they show on a terrible movie and that's why the attendance was down we don't know or with a show on the titanic where bodies fire into the theater we don't know that either the net wasn't shown it the court ruled that it doesn't have to be shown they only counted gross receipts ya a couple people wanted their money back but no one testified they didn't go to the theater because of the smell from the factory that was your no one that was found to be approximate causation in fact some are generally reversed because the it was up to the jury to decide that  will stand by what i told you if you look at every case it says that it consomme for a basis a case that never said that is just a repeated mistake of paste and copy and you can't go back to a case that really says that and that i don't think it's the law i don't think it should be the law and his far as individual people that the statements made that we have have found all people that didn't come here and that's not entirely correct if you look at our brief we name several people who whose business was pulled from the shops we elected not to use those but say we would have made four hundred dollars on that or five hundred dollars on that repair a thousand dollars on a repaired we didn't put that in this bars are damages but we did show people we have people who say they didn't come because of the sas so it's in the and you can see it in there and there is a there's more than one or two there's probably more than people in the theater asked for their money back  of vehicle they shot that car to three other body shops and came up with estimates while fix the car for eight hundred bucks i'll fix the car for nine hundred bucks over five thousand dollars under the country estimate which is bo