w that demand invalid declaratory action seeking to staff the coverage as provided by the policy the declaratory action was heard by judge brinn to be in rural county and he ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff and against general casualty the policy language at issue in our policy has never been addressed by any other court and so we're going to ask the court to take a fresh look at the policy when we have on the decorations page that submitted before the court and then used the case law that decorations page that the n t s b that will provision completely contained in the under insured motorist policy clears up any question with regard to the second issue first let's go to the decorations page we have included on page nineteen of our brief a copy of the decoration page estimated with the policy as you can see here in the duck relations pages in the matrix format and it lists three vehicles in the coverages that are extended to all three vehicles most significantly on the ration page is the language that is right at the top of the matrix that language is new and different than any other policy language analyzed by any court in any case that we are aware of the language provides that the coverage is listed below apply separately for each vehicle and are provided only where the a premium or included is shown it then goes on to say which is the new language we're asking you to pay close attention to that limit of liability apply separately for each vehicle so the declarations page itself indicating that there's no stacking with the three coverages as they are listed it's making it clear and unambiguous statement to the insurer reads the decorations paid to the insured leave the decorations that no stacking is allowed and that each policy limit applies separately for each vehicle i mean i believe that should end the discussion really with regard to whether there's any ambiguity in our policy and you don't need to go any further in analyzing whether you need to get to the limitation language that's contained in the entrance recorders provision however we can see that there is kids are out there the group addicted being in the seminal one that in the case that one policy the midterm with more than one time on the decorations is legally entitled to recover them from the owner of the opera or operator of the under insured motor vehicle it then limits that coverage to the amount shown on the schedule or in the decorations page for each person for each under insured motorist coverage the per person limit never get per person them in appears anywhere on the decorations page it then goes on to say the most new this is the most we will pay regardless of the number of insurance claims made the vehicles or premiums shown on the potential ambiguity that might be created under the grid dicta by listing the policy limits for each vehicle i think instructive for the court although i'm not directly on point because that is not addressed the power of the language in our policy or some of the liability as well as a limit on declarations page and together there's there can be no other reasonable interpretation of the policies coverages should not be stacked this court should also take a look at the strickland case and the ritter case in this recurring case the it was a two thousand and four case in the second district and there they again rejected the per se rule saying just because it was did more than once doesn't mean that there's an indignity that you have to interpret the language of the policy  in the fourth district in the same thing in two thousand and one in the river case they actually went on to say just listing them in columns there that indicates the amount of coverage for each vehicle it doesn't try to create an ambiguity or staffing of the policy coverage of this court also addressed this issue in the production property and casualty versus kelly case in two thousand and four addressed by this third district and nearly we're discussing a limitation of coverage and said that limitation applies regardless of the number of policies insur the language he says i see it but it doesn't matter to me and i don't think that's a fair analysis i think every word as part of a policy has to be under in order for the court to be interpreting the policy as a whole he also just summarily disregarded the writter case on from the floor district  that clearly is not the right result in the state of illinois and clearly the courts in the supreme or in particular in concept that there's no per se rule you can't just stop here you have to analyze the language in doing so i think when the court analyzed the language in our polic actually and she had i know she got me astronaut but was in looking at a magazine in the gas station and someone who was intoxicated drove there be a call through the wall of the gas station and it not the magazine rack and wall into her but she drove of the bodily injury liability limit for each person insured there would be little to suggest such a listing by such a list of the parties intended to cover it would be limited to that provided for only one of two vehicles it would be more than reasonable to assume that the parties intended that in return for two premiums to cover two miles or four before they were discussing the situation it was not before so that's why all the subsequent seventeen cases that judge brinn to be of stripper i'll talk about stripper first but both ritter and struck with our cases that were decided before the supreme court's decision in hot hot is essentially the most recent important pronouncement was stacking from our said there was twenty eight or is twenty separate listings of premiums on a foreign policy they all had real low limits of what forty thousand to twenty thousand forty thousand the whole thing from the fifth district consistent with ho the right because there was only one who does the room here in this case it's listed three times and that is the very straightforward and basic answer to the question the judge bruce faced i don't recall any settlement demand being before four years before ten years before what the court is going to do when the court is obligated to do is look at the policy we did issue before the court here today that red herring argument that they change the policy and somehow that matters i get that it was included in  where which you have to focus on is what is the policy language before you in looking at the policy which you will note that mr o'donnell in the plaintiff in this case did not make any reference to the separately one which is listed on the decorations page in the matrix for the pet project that language argument because there is nothing they can say that language is clear and if you look at the then further all of the limited liability language in the under insured motorists provision it's sad the most who are paid is the per person limit s agree that there's no person who will judge bernie give lip service to it and said there's no per se rule at the high point and we're asking this court to not do that we're asking this court to take it beyond the next step to take it to the next step and say ok if we think there's an