and there's also the question about whether or not there are questions raised in the pleadings that were put forth by state farm resides primarily on his own being us is an unsettled question of law this is incorrect the supreme court has provided clear guidance over a determination most of his life with the rare exception of a few years where his family relocated to kansas city missouri hitler is home life with is grandparents in he still maintained quo with his grandparents just set the ultimate issue and that was what was filed in those justices opinions it must be said it must be shown that state f running out of time  up to now bauble and the case employers vs alcohol he also relies on a two thousand and two case from the first district which in this brief he says that is that what this court has held while alcoa is not applies even though the trial court granted summary judgment so clearly abuse of discretion is the proper standard for the court to apply in this case with respect to the pleading there's only one pleading that's at issue here on this appeal and that's hutchens counter complaint for statutory damages this counter complaint was filed in may two thousand and four has never been and that it's based on the alleged conduct that occurred sometime between  date the date of the accident which was june fourteenth two thousand and three and march eighteenth two thousand and four when state farm the complaint for judgment action this is a nine month timeframe there's just a handful of three which was two months after the accident on december first two thousand and three he provided all records and medical damages as a proof of loss to show that this damages were in excess of the twenty five thousand to twenty thousand dollar  policy limits of the motorists that struck him on december fifth just four days later he notified state farm that the other insurer had offered to settle for its twenty thousand dollars policy limits he also demanded arbitration for non coverage as the relevant portion of state farm's current policy form is them it us finally has counseled threatened by the state farm delayed payment up as claimed by filing a d j you would counterclaim and request section arbitration and that he had to pay a portion of the feet and that state from father declaratory judgment action on march eighteenth two thousand and four which was just over three months after hutchins have provided the with respect to evidence if you review the brief the statement of facts in the apartments free here it's devoid of any facts in the record to support the allegations of the counter complaint just just such as sta referenced in his presentation that when there was a note by a state farm manager dated december third two thousand and three and this is in the record at pate's seven fifty two that he cites this is two days after the  and if you look at that page just a few notes down that there is an entry of the same date by the thing adjuster he states it appears that we have an issue of presidency as well as weather and that the injury minor qualifies as an insured under the policy which is the power the city of the miners grandparents correspondence we have received to date reflects the miners address at the time of loss as six o seven letter and chicago appears residence was and did not know if an opinion was requested in the same summary judgment response they attach testimony from another state farm manager tad larsen stating that in response to the december twenty ninth two denial letter was sent before suit was filed in march and that no state representative it representative actually went to visit the insurance home in the months after the accident to see if there and tha received medical records that identified hatcheries address as his mother's residence in chicago better reviewed a copy of the police report with a fax date of july twenty second two thousand and three which listed hutchins address as his mother's residence in chicago also a state farm representative had a phone call with hutchins counsel after receiving the medical records around december second two thousand and three pointing out the president's initial in addition the letter that from it with his mother in chicago rather than with the insurance and bolingbroke they identified the issue of whether hutchens qualified as an insured no later than december second or third two thousand and three after receiving medical records from hutchin counsel the pieties communicated regarding the existence of a dispute and at that time no illinois court had found that resides primarily language used in the state farm policy  construction it doesn't determine whether this language is ambiguous in the first place or if it would be ambiguous as applied to the particular circumstances of this case and quite so in other jurisdictions have found that identical language to be i mean big u s and applied to preclude coverage this court instructed in o'connor that the relevant inquiry on the section one paid by client is whether there is a bona fide dispute that this dispute was genuine was confirmed by the fact that the trial court found in favor of state farm on the issue of whether hutchence resided primarily with the insurance and this court took three different approaches on the issue i set forth in the rule twenty three order ambiguous and should be determined at the time of the accident and in light of all of these circumstances the trout quite clearly did not abuse its discretion and granted summary judgment in brought up in the trial court it was awesome brought up for the first time in the price break so for that reason it has been waived and if the court considered it considers that it only applies if there has been unfair surprise as to a new defense being raised and clearly the issue of why there are options beside it primarily with his grandparents was in fact mitigated and they participated in political action and they cannot say that they were unfairly surprised by kind of applicable here in the way that state farm has doctored this investigation as well as a litigation keep in mind that i represented reginald hutchens through his mother investigation which would have made all of this results primarily is an exclusion and it is to be rid narrowly and he has to be clear definite and specific in it absolutely was and that's what this court previously learned court it indicate that this was intentional and that this was designed to manipulate their policy in whatever way they saw fit under different circumstances and that's demonstrated by the wisconsin holding by the alabama holding us demonstrated by what happened here before and i feel like enough is enough it's time to show him to receive full justice that he's entitle eyes common sense is it got to be two different residences if they had gone out and done any kind of investigation aside from their belief that school records from a fourteen year old in the midst represent