seated before we call the first case i do want to announce that justice gray as is the third panel member on this case and we did have a slight panel reconfiguration this morning  because one of the judges recused himself he was previously i think somewhat perhaps involved in the underlying action when it was in  light believe i'm a forty thousand dollars mr toy then made a claim for under insured morris coverage under a policy with progressive that allison with progressive listed andrew never been any dispute in any denial by progressive that it does provide under insured motorists coverage progress is disputed in this case is how i would share or whether it shares under insured murderess coverage with state farm and we're talking now about us the farm if one will be able insurance company who issued three policies of automobile insurance two to a gentleman by the neighbor randall toy who is andrew's father in one policy to terry center who was randall toit's second wife after andrew made this claim four hundred sure motorists coverage with progressive andrew then made a claim for underage or made claims for under insured motorists coverage under two policies of auto insurance issues to randall toy and one policy of under insured coverage automobile insurance coverage issued two to terry center he also made a claim under insured motorists coverage under t anymore and the umbrella policies the umbrella policies were ruled on about four months after the trial court rule and the other policies in the trial court found that there was no coverage under either of the umbrella you do you have a case said that allows you to bring an issue and a motion to reconsider can you show me one case that's i can show you the supreme court won't feel for it what can you show me one case that talks about that you that's what it says how can you read consider something that is a big considered you can bring up you can bring up anything anything in a motion to reconsider even did you didn't bring it up before i ma a motion to reconsider i'm motion made before the court because they've either made some errors that we discovered evidence here here you didn't bring up the issue at all you bring it up on a motion to reconsider and then you say then we should look at  he actually heard in a while briefing and decide it's an abuse of discretion standard to determine whether and that issue is going away the trial judge heard the argument he ruled on it he did not say it was too late he ruled out and said well ok you know i'm not going to get point with you i just want to bring it from fire obligated to fight to argue that the umbrella policies somehow prorated with the five hundred thousand dollars progressive policy when the judge hadn't even made any decision regarding stage to even discuss the paul ration because a judge the trousers refused to decide whether the umbrella policy why if you look at his judgment order from october of two thousand and thirteen he has a footnote that says it's not necessary for purposes t an additional two million dollars of coverage progressive would have been entitle to nothing other than a declaration over five hundred thousand dollars this this really isn't that a dispute involving in its oil for reasons i'm not really quite aware of entry point has not filed in appearance in this case in his not arguing the fact that in provide no more of the five hundred thousand dollars in coverage this litigation took well over two years progressive the middle of it had a policy that applied but we spent two years trying to figure out how much of the five hundred thousand dollars these insurance companies were going to pay enter a choice never got a penny more all he got was that the late and the payment that he was inside of the two but i go back to what i said before  quite right to set it says there's a there's the wrists that's the definition of relative which means which says that you have to be related by blood measured abs adoption and we say are merely with you and then there's the qualifying sentence that follows as it says give you an example as to how absurd this really is if you have an if you have for example a seventeen year old carol who is this as the first parents and she lives with her mother and she's getting ready three months and three months to go with school and she's involved she lives with her mom and she's involved in an accident she read resides with them i'm she's involved in an accident and june first day after she graduates she's entitled to uninsured motor policy because you read those two sentences into destructive one doesn't depend on the other the alabama supreme court recognized the of servia that position and said you have to read them together in the second sentence only means no presence at all in chicago he had a bed and as we point out virtually every parents whose children leave the house keeps the bedroom at least for some period of time as their bedroom they don't go colorado write me all of his mail was going to his colorado which routes that's according to the cases that's an important factor all right he said he would come to his parents two homes an occasion there might be some junk mail but all of this important mail addressed to him was going to colorado and you'd have to have a physical presence to show residency he can't even remember the last time he came to chicago six it's it's an exclusion second sentence is obviously intended to expand on the first sentence and to indicate that the child was away at school is not excluded from the term relative in the policy by virtue of the language it was formerly but it's not an exclusion it's an expansion just makes clear that if you look primarily with your parent and then you go away to school just looking to be covered under their parents policy because you were looking primarily you have an intense return back to their parents and point never had any in  it in the second sentence instead of a particular noun and if the pronoun it refers back to the word person then the two lines are connected with the second line expounding on the meaning of the different directions well you know a person could be here a she but i don't think a person could be and it you have any case law that says a person can be and it so we stepped up to the plate with the cloud but the fact that there's coverage under our policy does not negate coverage from state farm polls the poll says recognize that there may be coverage under more than one policy accident and her return to chicago to recover she and dr toy had a discussion should andrew continue to split his time in chicago on a fifty fifty basis this winds had just sold her house and was montana and moved into a temporary apartment on the record she was a registered nurse working at northwestern she was also taking time from work because she had a medical condition that she was taking care of in the decision was made between appears to have  ever lived with her so she could help in his recovery and he stayed in chicago until he was well enough to return to colorado college to continue his junior one contested issue before judgment primarily with the named insured at the time of loss and if that were the only definition as apparent in when your son or daughter either goes to boarding school or goes to college you're wondering are they covered under my entire school year the answer those issues are put aside by that second sentence of that definition not to worry when your child's away at school he's a should relative well it's outlook or when he said that is really only one case so when it comes to that second definition there for criteria that you have to meet you have to be unmarried you have to be only spaded you have to be a child and the first one is that that obviously includes a child a natural child and we believe it's reasonable to interpret that word child in the second sentence of the definition to include a stepchild as well there certainly the policy is not written to exclude its state farm's theory is right if it doesn't include a state a step child and what's true from his tolerance is that when a natural child is a stepchild are at home residing primarily with the mother and the father the mother recorder but the minute they both go to go to college the natural child continues to get coverage but the step child does not and that just makes no sense whatsoever it would be the same case an adoption state state farm would college student that that it's our view if that definition is expressly intended to cover students it children like and one other issue was raised four he find it is true that if a judgment order is into like a jury in nature because all of the claims have not been resolved before the trial court then that judgment may be vacated unmodified at any time but that doesn't change the standard of review that doesn't change the rule that you can't raise a new legal theory when you go to reconsider and the judge consider the motion for reconsideration because there were issues that were argued before judgment was in which state farm asked the court to look at it so the internet contrary nature of the word or of a judgment order as opposed to a final judgment order goes to the time limitation that you have to contest that judge until all the claims have been resolved so in your view the world of review of reconsideration is the same if the judgment is it into migratory order or a final order you know when the policy a way is using the word away at school but the word away it doesn't give any kind of limitation as the word away it does not go so out so how we asked i'm fond sure and that's what we're here to ask yes the circuit court that we asked this court to affirm the circuit court's decision in that regard i'm in this to court as any further questions away with no intention of returning most college kids do not go to another town and register to vote they can't and the reason why they can't is because they can't show they h residency in their college town to find that andrew tory did not have a residency in colorado is going to do great five months to illinois election was the supreme court has said you can't register to vote all your polish town unless you show you have a residence there he had a residency in colorado he had a primary residenc in colorado in how do we know that because he can't even remember the last time he came to chicago before his accident neither can his parents and we know we had a residency in colorado because he was registered to vote conduct all those business heads license in colorado we know he had a residency in colorado and not in chicago because of all of those factors he was registered to vote in colorado shows that he had a residency there and it was his primary residency housel for progressive said to you in his first sentence that was the sign of randall toy or the stepson of terry's center and wine because he didn't reside there he didn't live there he came to visit infrequently and stayed for a night or t but i'll of i'll say you're right here and i think i understand your point but they don't cite a single case not a single case that says you can't reconsider when there's been less than all parties they can't cite a single case the few cases they cite involve final orders this order entered by the trial judge was not a final order but more importantly or just equally important the trial case the side to do it just doing it straight which means that a five hundred thousand dollar policy issues are progressive to andrew toy and his mother as a same contribution to the t hundred fifty thousand dollar coverages issued by state farm and we cite a number of cases that say that when policies include pro rata language it's incumbent on the court to prorate the policies toys under the state farm auto policies and that's when the courts declare their progressive provides its under insured coverage from the fifty's a five hundred thousand dollars just as a contract