family oh no motor vehicles it was wise to purchase insurance coverage because his son was a driving day and it would be easier for them to borrow vehicles if they could tell people they were insure however when he went to use that coverage in a cell was involved d in an act that then he was told that there was no coverage for his son's injuries and there was no coverage for the medical bills he incurred on behalf of his son he holder and the policy must be considered as a whole in this case the wall was not filed by the trial court and she granted judgment on the  insurance company and she based her rulings on an isolated portion of the policy which failed to take into account the entire policy or the reasonable expectations of the insurer in this case the record is essentially the plaintiff and defendant pleadings and copies of the insurance policy and the court felt that that was enough to grant judgement on the clean rooms even though the standard for granting judgment on waiting to be when there was no big chill factor in dispute and you could simply review the transcript or the policy and intended to purchase and there was a dispute as to whether plaintiffs was aware of and accepted the terms of the final nine order indorsement which was appended to the policy without evidence on these points we think it was improper for the court to grant judgment on the pleadings and that the judgment should be reversed is the court will be aware in this case this was one policy that owner indorsement which effectively took away coverage and said it was only for the named insured who would be and the court lower court found that if you considered the whole policy as a whole it was ambiguous and it was confusing because it did have all these multiples of changes but the court also found that the endorsement would control over the bottom body of the policy and therefore she was obligated to just look at this indorsement and construe it in isolation and she thought when considering it in isolation it wasn't ambiguous and we disagree we think that violates the will of insurance law which is a policy must be considered as a whole defense is always argued well the plaintiff was obligated to review the policy when he received it and if he had any objections he was a promptly bring that or if you notice any defect is to bring that issue to the agent's attention and ask for clarification or change to the policy and in this case one can still mad did not do that if the defendant's position hey you got what you bought is very clear that the rule only applies when the insurer to be reasonably expected to understand the terms of the policy and in this case there was no finding by the court he was aware of this or that he had the ability to understand the terms of this policy to how it changed in progress throughout the several additions and then finally that was made and without that finding the judgement on the pleadings should not never have been granted there were just disputed issues of fact here  non owner indorsement but once again that violates the rule of law that the policy should be construed as a whole and not and  in each of the different endorsements does appear in big us the case all by the defendant holds that an insurance policy must be construed in conjunction with all endorsements in order to determine in effect of the insurance contract if there is any ambiguity between the policy and the endorsement the endorsement will control and it's our contention that the policy as a whole once it's found to be  says it's called the non owner endorsement illinois ok and we believe that that policy was it was ambiguous in the context of the entire policy because i mean i don't know how a layman would go through this whole policy and started giving them his his son coverage and at the end it turns out it's just for him but once again i when we talk about an endorsement i think many of us practice law or coughing or you know we think of at least in an auto context of restrictive driver indorsement or something that is added to a policy after it's issue in this case that's not what happened here by all outward appearances this was just one policy that was issued at the time that it was purchased and it had all of these different definitions in it and was later never brought to his attention that there was an endorsement to the policy that changed the whole body of the policy once again that would be a fact question and there's nothing in the record to support the conclusion or finding that he was aware of this non this non owner indorsement or that he accepted this court is aware those claims can only be bought by the parents read this film at the son had no ability to bring these actions in his own behalf so under the uninsured motorist provision of this policy can't the named insurer should have been allowed to make things clearly because certainly as far as the medical bills go that's an economic harm that was personal to him that was not a claim which is son was obligated on or who bring him home we have only to bring that plane and that was a claim that was personal to him which he was obligated on and apparently when you read the article i mean when you read the court's order she says that the plaintiff's counsel made a compelling argument the bradleys troll that should be afforded coverage under the un sure sorry kent the father is the named insurer under any interpretation of this policy he is the one that holds this medical expense claim he is the one who holds the claim for his son they can't exclude his personal claim and it is a personal plague to him based upon an exclusion this is his cl so it under the circumstances we would ask the court vacate the lower order find that the policy is a big us as well as a whole is the court lower court did and  policy but i could not find anywhere in the record where you know the david was submitted or anything of that nature on behalf of your client it was not a yes no there was nothing that it was not but once the obligation of them to exclude those possibility that doesn't mean sham and when you argue here today doesn't that go to what your client intended to purchase versus what he was actually given me i understand as the law contracts aside for a moment once you have an ambiguity and the court found are you saying that mike but ask him representing the abilene biking insurance company it was guns and the st thing i like to mention here owners is there is no legitimate factual issue here the trial court correctly ruled on the it says of this house he type as indicated above the policy provides the selected coverage for only the maid insured when driving the own cars so that was the application that he signed and submitted and sure enough that's the policy he received insured confirmation so this is the nd page i guess of the application and it says i understand that i must report to the company on of legal driving age or older who live with me temporarily or permanently in all children olive's i mean and then it goes on i understand that must report all persons who are regular is limited to only one person sure this is a formidable occasion your honor and again this but it's a unique coverage there's not that many policies like this old in illinois because i mean there's a lot of people in chicago for example don't have cars but in southern illinois we all know almost everybody that drives has a car of some kind but the point is it's a form implication that's something that any insurance company want to know because typically and it was every policy except for this c here the insurance going to cover the vehicle and the carrier is going to want to know all potential drivers and you know in a household because they could potentially drive the car or underwriting purposes which they going to charge for a premium multiple definitions coming i mean do you really expect that if the court finds an ambiguity based on all these definitions that there can be just not all the pl these definitions and even the application talking about other drivers your honor that there's really no an ambiguity to begin with because the the trial court when she entered her final order in the case  and sixty two she mentions that the plaintiff argues once ambiguity is found to exist was compelled to find coverage regardless of the facts and because created by the indorsement says the court disagrees the language of the endorsement controls over contradictory language elsewhere in the policy and therefore there is no ambiguity so that's what judge smith put in her order again it's he wants to it just so we're clear on this issue in order to find an ambiguity there has to be a autos there is a standard form it gets customized by endorsements depending on the type of vehicle if there is an excluded driver and a number of reasons this is how insurance policies are issued because again there's millions of cars on the road in illinois no insurance carrier can write a script i always see for each and every insured it would just be impossible because again there's millions of people that you know have to be insured to drive cars in illinois ok so the way to proceed is draft if you have a standard  to him and then that's the name owner and endorsement illinois so again what we're talking about here is a claim for med pay benefits and a claim for uninsured motorist coverage so the fact that the original sort of body of the policy names would include real resin or relatives we have an endorsement that restricts and limits the coverage to only the insur person which is the insured person is defined as you which is the only person shown is the named insured and your dac the other words the only the only change to the policy that's relevant here is again med pay and uninsured motorist and there's no ambiguity because the endorsement controls over the body of the policy this was added to the policy because again it's a unique situation here where mr straw met does not even own a vehicle and he's only insuring himself so  know did he agree to the endorsement those cases talk about changes in policies midstream now who were once the policies issued something happens later and we have that the commercial case where the i think the son of the driver wanted to exclude his son from driving and i was like a midstream change in the policy but there's an issue there will be insured agree to change the policy midstream you know what was the agreement there was their consideration for a change of the policy here is completely different because from the very beginning of the policy in june mr straw her his application plus the the policy sent to him indicating out today actually he's the only person insured so this is from the word go it was the only person insured the policy wasn't changed midstream later and like he says that mr our sights sights too and in his brief this was the original policy issued no changes between june and september when the understanding is expectations well here's the problem just just to be begin with judge because well you know there's different definitions but if you just the st page of me before we even get into reading this thing ok the  into a big you know what my gosh you know this is long to read i don't understand it it's confusing you don't even even get there because the guy i mean just look at page woman and he's i will gated to read this incidentally according to the illinois supreme court american family vs crap says the insurer is immediately have to read over their policy and if there's an issue a question a problem they have to bring it to their agents attention because it will the supreme court says if there's any kind of a negligence claim or claim against the agent for getting the wrong coverage that to your statute runs immediately on receipt of the policy ok now when the accident occurs you know later months later he or later the insured is abrogated to bring a problem to the attention of the all policies are just that about the other drivers right it's a it's it's a standard it's a standard form because again judge any insurance co they're going to want to know any drivers if this is a little bit of a unique and you need to know any driver show that says that to me it's not so why would you put that in the policy at all if he is the only one covered under the policy why would they why would they have to question well they don't make they answer your question or a one hundred they don't make specific forms that i'm never aware of just for this type of coverage when somebody goes to buy insurance from from an insurance agent they're named all all the members that could drive the car or members of the hospital and is or isn't i don't is it two different forms well it's a standard question the that an insurance company's going to want to know because it's right there and it's right there in the end because again they're going to want to know what they're going to want to get all the information from the insurer when they come in and they're going to try to find out what kind of coverage the insured ones if he wants this unique type of coverage because he doesn't have a car he's going to get sold this unique type of coverage i thought he was lying just like the scanner scan rick that's correct so i mean you're arguments about what's contained in an ordinary policy is just as well it's just asking about bets that's not in the record anywhere and that's why i asked the question i mean this is a standard policy that you issued and then instead of crossing out the relevant portions that would have limited this you now try to add this indorsement that the court don to to declare for declar y release but let me ask you did as you say that from the get go on the plaintiff knew that you was the only insurer driver and the word on the debt pages name of occupying your insured car etc so even though it says insured on a debt page with them the cops get go on the policy it continues to talk about a definition of insured being you are relative right if there's a conflict between the body the policy and the endorsement the endorsement controls it has the name the owner adores milena this is a standard this is how policies are issued in the state of illinois for years and years and i mean there's nothing unusual about it in terms of endorsements changing a policy this is how millions of policies have that are issued in illinois i mean this is a bit unique frankly to change a policy this way coverage there's absolutely zero reasonable difference in terms of a reasonable interpretation because if you go to the indorsement it says definitions use you and your means only the person shown is the name  your declarations page and that's consistent with it go to med pay insured person means any of the following you will occupying your insured car you as a pedestrian when struck by motor vehicle you could uninsured motorist coverage  the only the only change in the policy that's relevant here for those we're talking a med pay an uninsured motorist is the definition of insured in the body of the policy versus the definition in the endorsement because the endorsement is different from the body the policy indorsement controls i mean every case in illinois says that the only way you could have a theoretical ambiguity is this or some kind of a potential conflict where it says well no maybe you like on the deck sheet if the sun was listed as an insured well maybe that maybe the kid would be and insured and the policy can't strawman is the only person so it's listed as the named insured and when you go to the endorsement it changes the definition of who is an insured in the main body and the only person that is insured is the named insured so it's consistent the deck sheet is consistent with the endorsement yes the endorsement changes the definition of an insured person  policy but that's the purpose of an endorsement that's out insurance policies auto policies all policies are issued in the state of illinois it's just that's just the standard how it's done so there's really no bas and i'm not good with the name either your honor but the point is there was the named insured ok so tons of it was a named insured under the policy here in service and so is injured right but he was uninjured the name insured was not injured in terms of it that person was hurt that was the named insured of basically is the supreme court says you can't exclude coverage for a named insured because tons of it was the person that was insured the policy was issued to him this particular case claim ok so the injuries are to a known insured sun so the but clear is that it but as you said it is a derivative claim the father so the father is the insurer the claim i derivative claim it belongs to the father and the public policy of the state of the i used to cover i mean sure motorists planes so since it is a derivative claimed i don't know how we might be responsibility responsible for the medical bills that stand to the family expense that you doesn't give a cause of action to the insured it just says miss the adult the pair it is responsible for the medical bills it doesn't create a cause of action and you know someone not insured under the policy are outside the intended scope of uninsured motorist provisions and excluding such claims does not violate public policy underlying the uninsured motorist acts so the bottom line is the injury was again the family expense act does not create a cause of action in favor of mr stroma it just creates some fancy responsibility on him for the medical bills for the son because the son is mad and insured and the policy policy benefits are not available that the coverage only applies to the named insured and that's consistent with both the uninsured motorist claim and the med take claim so the medical bills incurred by somebody that is not insured would not be covered under the policy and under the state bar versus george case we have the death of the mother a claim brought by the daughter the court said that that and that's consistent with other states as well because they did a survey of a number of different states in the union where this does come up not insured under the policy only the daughter in the father work i understand but the cause of action heroes for my completely different kind of stance as i recall in georgia was it was a conscious court would certainly take precedent over this two thousand and two public court and then the last point i just want to make the defense's argument seems to be well this is the kind of standard application it's always use and things along those lines that's not an excuse i mean they can be if they're if they're making money off of these things they can have clarification and then understanding them and i'm sure they've got a separate policy for homeowners insurance sure that that is separate application for boat insurance well it's a standard thing and the fact that yes it is confusing shouldn't be taken into account in this case it should be taken into account and once again you know they want to say well look at the back page it was clear only if you only if you could understand of insurance policy and that's what crop says that you have to the court would have to find that he had a reasonable expectation of being able to understand this policy in a policy that constantly changes the definition is the lawyers have been  about this the judge took it under account took you know it's a it's a confusing policy by any stretch of the imagination the way it was issued it's very confusing that's all i have thank you