exercise ordinary care and skill in procuring the coverage requested by most part of the court went on to hold there is no duty in this case because he had not requested worker's compensation that's factually stings in this case most part if we were so inclined sometimes by mistake a case that involves the same statute the same analysis that there was the fact of duty established by two two zero one a and then also went through the with the same similar list of first district cases which can include in the definition insurance producer insurance brokers again those cases which involve insurance brokers i'm sure a producer may be an insurance broker but not all the time but an insurance broker may be an insurance producer all the time but not all insurance  sarah's is a captive agent that he is a country companies agent he can only sell insurance the country or one of the country's really good companies all of the country financial because that is important we're talking about this broker versus egypt distinction the second thing is it's not as simple as those cases where an agent is said get me some insurance and the agent doesn't get out shirts because we're trying to say that an agent can't be held liable for them because they tell the case does say if you don't act within a reasonable time to do it you're supposed to do now in this case though there is a question as to what is it exactly being requested for the fiance she was added as a driver i'm mr scott curtis how policy as opposed to being added as a insured so in terms of the facts here it's not as simple as i think i sense almost a chance that well if this doesn't work out twenty two a one we sold out a chance because he didn't get insurance but they did have her  insurance she was a driver on the policy so just to get that out of the way and that sounds good i've got a question about who so he was the one who was injured correct your honor he was i my clients again we have to accept the facts is there but in the complaint it is my client's position that none of this was our request it that situation was there was a car accident they found out that his fiance was driving and country added her as the driver because you can't have someone driving a car getting an x and then not getting paid for but that's not before the court the allegation i believe is that he says his client requested that she be added as an insured for coverage work in this that we need to remember is when we're looking at amendments to statutes and changes it's against the backdrop of what the common law was the common law it was very well established before that statute was enacted that we've got  definition in the insurance code well and i'm saying that is a very good question the first thing is the insurance code is different than the code of civil procedure so i understand i'm looking into that for the decision but when you have a well they pointed out that insurance producer wasn't defined in the code of civil procedure they were interpreting another provision of the code of civil procedure but then they went on to say that common law does in illinois and insurance producer is use screws through for kirk probably not a whole lot when it comes down to it i would agree with that assessment it's essentially insured it's not country saying there's not coverage the insurance i'm happy and they say well i think the simple reason is that the supreme court after hearing oral arguments on a car there was a settlement and they made the decision as being moot they could have simply dismissed the appeal if they would on the merits because when you look at the plain language which was really argued and twenty to one and it's maybe you recall from higher up that almost more when we were before the trial court twenty two on one wasn't even an issue really it was kind of a side issue and it became a very big issue on appeal sex that then it was further interpreted things were delved into and additional facts were discovered i still believe that the plain language it is inconsistent if you feel the need to look somewhere else but clearly it's a limiting statute if you look at the background which we are required to do the presumption is that the legislature was aware of the case law and that if the legislature wanted to change that case law they needed to be very us now because the common law tells us an insurance producer is a broker and certainly when you look at the reason why that statute was passed and who introduced it it was the independent insurance agents which that is pro curse because they're independent i kept it they are the ones who put forth the legislation they are the ones that wanted it because they're saying we're getting tagged with all these few sherry claims it's to ride it's too much and that is what this statute was designed to claims but still allowing insurance to say wait a minute you still owe me a duty because you are my agent i come to you to make decisions and work with me and my in why the statute says sure we are going to still be able to maintain those kind of claims against your insurance producer which is a broker under common law there is we can't interpret a statute to change the common law unless the terms of the statute mandate that construction and there is nothing in the statute that would mandate that construction this dream court said in two thousand five of the people versus johns case a statute will not be interpreted to affect a change unsettled by unless the terms clearly require such a construction first district two thousand two case if it covers an area formerly covered by common law the statute must be construed as adopting here insurance producer sure it's the find in the insurance cold war place oh you know all right you could say well they could have to find this here too but they use this is a term of art why should be here after i think that seems to me as we said that means what it says well and then i think in that situation it still doesn't carry the day for playing it because you can that still if you want to interpret it that way you can say ok that what we're looking ass it's looking at section d where they talk about eliminating certain fiduciary liabilities and then it says the provisions of the section do not limit or release insurance producer from liability for negligence in other words that if we look at them what they're saying is we're going to leave intact but that common law is we're not going to change what it is so the liability that you would have for negligence would be who is the principle you're acting or mass then he'd be liable the country for that we're in this situation if you was an independent broker his duty is to this principle the insurer and then in that situation the liability would be to them in procuring the insurance of that statute if you read it as a whole and you have to read that as a whole you can't read section a in isolation he clearly intends to say we're limiting liability this is a statute this is why we created it well that trying to create new liability we're not trying to brought in causes of action because if that was the intent the case law to stamp wishes you need to be very clear with and specific language showing that the change in common law was intended i would say that you would help language and there it could have easily been remedied as justice pope said by defining what they meant by insurance producer in the statute but if they don't want to do that they should get a provision that says insured captive insurance agents will tell duties to not only their company but also to the insurance in pro rotary again a position on this you've got to look at what they had at the time before that what they were drafting this what was going on what was the law and if you look at what that was and you look at how th there is still the elements of now we negligence which are protected by subsection b and identified subsection a there still is a duty of ordinary care directly to the insured and that case how that he was an insurance agent he had a duty to the plaintiff doesn't matter didn't matter if you list an agent acting for another principle the same is true here and beyond that i would like to again note that sounds like the definition insurance producer is almost where this turns it would be very helpful if it was defined here in this section the legislature has find it and an insurance co covering insurance in general  and there's no reason to not think that this statute was purring would be happy would have the knowledge of best action as it was written and then finally this doesn't