that the certified question in this case should certainly be answered in that in the affirmative by your years back question where illinois insurance regulations provide that actual cash value or a c impression before before this court similar questions i appeal have been addressed by five state supreme courts with a six stitch state supreme court ending and a number of very well of course in district course across the lan will yes with the certified question says where in the range and regulations provided the actual cash value or a cd of uninsured if the court has already term actual cash value that term is defined as a as a legal term of or by by the regulation itself as well if by a century of illinois jurisprudence so the  whenever current or completed a full replacement cost benefits for that phase now that is very common to step last settlement provision it's been confirmed as being fire policy itself will only standard policy uses the term after cash value and does not define the term that's not a problem here because the term is defined under illinois correct correct so if depreciation is not the kind of narrow issue here what else is there to the determination of these the question would be whether the replacement cost because because of the  roof when it was built and included the materials the labor the sales tax on the on the shingles the general contractor overhead of profit it included all those things that his integrated all of that property  qualifications it doesn't save any depreciation for which you're but not by the way that labor or any other intangible cost it doesn't say that now the fact that it's regulation is significant here and the fact that the kind i don't view it as any kind of modifier because it actually says age condition and expected life of the property as well so that refers back to the actual cash value of the damage property again i comes off the shelf and sure and said that software and him any way they want one of the one of the aspects of the application is that the vendor the neighbors want to check if you ask them i don't think you are safe this is a default setting it's they say we have a robust tool and you can check whatever boxes you want we're not suggesting one or the other here's here's the here's a tool here's a piece of tool ok let  is persuasive its obligation is to show that the policyholders interpretation is wholly unreasonable and the reason why i bring that up is because if you look at the timeline as to what happened after the trial court issued it decision meeting that her finding that the trial court's interpretation is unreasonable seems to be a bridge too far the truck court's decision was rendered february th twenty eight dollars team about eight months court in a fireable unanimous decision in a state that has a relation again virtually identical to kentucky and illinois and holds that yes you can opt out of this policies and  the materials would be basically painting correct in most of the job labor so your position would be even though it might be a very expensive job to be fair the labor relates to what it releases replacement cost less depreciation methodology that is the best methodology for policyholders all that's available the two competing standards fair market value and brought out as rule the public the insurance companies to take anything that the insurance company wants and consider and have to lower the cost but and this is a decision that was  same case the trial here said you didn't bring your use case within the suit limitation clause but pretty says you have a good case because you can't appreciate labor but you didn't bring in time to sue t about policy there's a reference to it all again i don't know your perspective insurance experiences but there's a company called national underwriters and it is the fire captain surety company and fighting without trying to include in the class the full name that have really precision after steve far you know joining the rest of the industry and you know poor people what they were by this is just the folks that had labor appreciate labor initially but when they finally did it yes the default setting the way that the program works if you don't go in to manipulate the subject does not appreciate living in fact you you can't you the majority rule is the notion that it is competing opinions coming out of different courts that that somehow reflects multiple reasonable interpretations that must be interpreted gets the insurance dado determination based on his reading of a policy that's the obligation before before the court not not just simply assess papers competing views they must be reasonable because there is a jurist in these different locations approach to get the seed money the start line you know to to prove to repair a roof or whatever the damaged property is whenever has anyone paid the contractor here's all the money you know for the replacement cost and going out  a i need a little