counsel your arse that this is a fairly straightforward matter that turned into a business so to speak as a motor vehicle crash claim that we're here on appeal today regarding the under insured motorist benefits are what i had received adequate notice to trigger a duty to defend or handle the claim process for the plaintiffs and you i am coverage issue number two is we believe that the trial court erred in finding that there was no issue fact whether or not the plaintiff was required to make the formal written demand for arbitration under the policy as it pertains to you i am covered benefits issue number three we believe that there was an issue with the court finding that no issues of fact existed as to whether or not a section of the insurance code that has a tolling provision applied to the plaintiffs you i am coverage issue number four we believe that there was an error by the trial court and finding no issues of fact on the issue of his stoppel and lastly we believe that there was an issue with the trial court's ruling that there was no public policy as to a conflict between two clauses within the policy itself getting back to number one we believe th was sufficient at least to trigger the issue of finding a material issue of fact regarding whether or not notice was provided to country mutual regarding the plaintiff's claim for you i am benefits we cite to the heel case which i know that the defense counsel has issues about whether or not that's good law or not the plain meaning or plain fact is that that case has never been overturned by any court even the cases that counsel cite in their brief it's never been overturned so the notice and adequate notice holding in the hale case we believe is factually similar to this case in this particular case letters of correspondence were sent to country companies putting them on notice of a claim with regards to the pla for personal injury benefits which are provided on the under insured or u i in portions of the policy the adequacy of that notice based on the case law that we cite in our brief is generally held to be a question of fact whether or not the plaintiff's letters and correspondence to country taken in conjunction with the actions taken by country i e assigning a claim number of signing a claims representative taking steps to send  rare acknowledgement of representation letters of acknowledgement of receipt of a claim those are all things that we believe establish adequate notice but in at a minimum establish that there is an issue of fact whether or not country received adequate notice claim or not the proof of notice or proof of loss is not defined in the country policy at all you'll find no definition of proof of loss in the country policy whatsoever what you will find is in the general conditions portion of the policy what the requirements of the insurer to do under the policy are which is provide the name of the injured party and any potential witnesses there will be which is what the point of did in this case they provided general notice to country mutual that they were making a claim again country took steps as it related to this claim assigned claim number open to reserve to sign an adjuster took a recorded statement from the insured also the insured had numerous conversations with her agent as to her intent to pursue it quite for purposes of this case the country agent is not an independent agent he's a captured agent for country companies insurance company is the same as giving notice of information on a claim to a country itself he is a representative of the country even on you know the the greatest stretch of a parent agency versus actually agency you're going to or we would ask that you would find that he is an agent of country for purposes of providing notice of a point in fact the agent did in fact fax information on behalf of the point of to country about her claim putting medical bills and other information concerning her  but getting back to this first issue which is an error by the trial court and finding that absolutely there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff provided notice to country neutral regarding her claims we think that again that's an error by the court finding that there is no issue of fact when the case law suggests that general notice whether that and whether or not that notice is sufficient or not is generally held to be an issue of fact or trier of the facts to  that is the segues into argument number two your honor which is the this country argues that under the policy terms there is a provision that requires a insured to make a specific express written demand for arbitration as a part of the process of pursuing a u i and claim our position is that there isn't fact absolutely no policy provisions or conditions or conditions president that require our mandate and insurer to make a formal express written demand for you i am benefits the only portion of the policy that touches on making a formal demand for arbitration deals with uninsured motorist coverage when the carrier the insurer and the insured disagree as to whether or not the insured is entitle to recovery or entitled to coverage we don't have this in this case there was never a formal letter from country until after the plaintiff had made the claim for you i am to say hey wait a second you didn't make a formal written demand for arbitration pursuant to the policy and therefore were denying your client there is no requirement in the policy that you make a formal written demand for patrician as a condition precedent to the coverage provided under the under insured motorist provisions of the policy the illinois insurance financial responsibility law that mandates carriers to provide under insured or u i and benefits also contains no express provision requiring the arbitration of a u i employee if you look at the statute itself it doesn't mention requirement of arbitration for you i am coverage in fact we cite to a couple of cases in our brief that actually stood for the proposition that the fin responsibility law does not and has never been held to require arbitration of a u i employee there is a distinction between uninsured and under insured and a lot of the cases that defense counsel say to in their brief deal with uninsured motorist problems which is a different coverage than you i am you i am is under insured motorists and it applies when a carrier the at fault carrier doesn't have enough insurance to adequately compensate  injured person and so they can go into their own insurance to obtain additional coverage rather than substitute coverage which is what you get in an uninsured motorist situation but again there is no case there is no  case that i'm aware of anyway that requires arbitration of the u i employments and that's key in this case because the cases that defense counsel cites to are uninsured motorist claims were arbitration is required under the section of the financial responsibility law and so what you have here is country trying to apply one set of standards for one set of claims to a different set of claims under the policy if there is a disagreement between country or the insurer and the insured as to whether they're entitled to any coverage in this case the facts of record are that the that we made or that our office made on behalf plaintiffs the in the insured a demand for coverage we provided notice of the loss they took a statement from the insured indicating that she was involved in a motor vehicle crash that she said sustained personal injuries they had process some for medical bills under the medical payments coverage which is an additional coverage on the policy but then when it time came time to try to process the under insured motorists claim are you i am claiming that there was this denial based upon all that wait a second no formal written demand for arbitration had been made we don't believe that there is really a requirement for a formal demand of arbitration unless there's a dispute as to the amount that the the plaintiff is entitle to recover or that there is a dispute as to whether they're entitled to coverage at all in this case there was never any correspondence from country denying the claim saying you don't have under insured motorists coverage or deny the claim saying we don't think it's worth as much as you think it's worth there isn't any of that correspondence between the insured in the insurance case so there is no dispute as the owner points out which we think is is a condition precedent to making a formal written demand for arbitration there has to be a disagreement or just as to whether there is coverage that applies or whether the amount of the claim itself i e there is a dispute about what the value tolling issue that we raise in our appeal as well we believe that section five one forty three point one which is a totally provision under the only insurance code does apply in this case and i believe that defense so i actually has conceded in their brief that it is that the section technically applies to you i am claims as well where we get into disagreement is in regards to whether or not again in this particular case they argue that a formal written demand for arbitration was always required under the policy and therefore the tolling provision doesn't apply because we didn't follow the requirements on the policy you won't serve you won't find in the policy any requirement of a formal written demand for treason you simply will not find it at all as it relates to you i am coverage but even if it is required we believe that the tolling provision of the statute began on the date on which the plaintiff provided proof of loss to country which was in january of two thousand and eleven until the date that country formally denied the un your claim which was in october of two thousand and twelve so there would be months there almost a year that the claim would have we believe that the letter of representation and notice of attorneys and lean providing notice of a that our office was representing in the mire for a claim against country was proof of loss we also believe that the providing of a recorded statement giving them all of the details and facts of the crash also provided proof of loss to country financial which was enough information under their general conditions to trigger coverage cla correct and they had a sign to claim number they had actually written to her prior to our involvement advising her of her rights and responsibilities under the policy and i would note that none of those rights and responsibilities included any advisory to her that she was required to make a formal written demand for arbitration for any coverages under a policy only advising her that medical payments coverage payments would reduce the amount that she would be entitled to prospectively under the u i in coverage conglomeration of all of those things in addition to the affirmative actions that country took on their side of this to establish a claim set up a reserve assign a claim number correspond with its insured correspond with us i i agree although during the course of the two year period of time the country argues that the claimant needed to be handled within they did in fact gain that knowledge that the at fault driver was under insured and they in fact opened up an under insured reserve for the case in the kind of sat back and waited to see what happened but yes i think all of those things again minimally raise an issue of fact  to the supreme court there is damage to a vehicle she had medical payments coverage she had medical bills that were being processed then for whatever reason this meyer switched law firms to the strong law firm and they sent a letter to the medicaid representative who was handing the med pay she had gotten letters you know about med pager right under med pay it's in the record about you know two years medical bills with them and curve them dates of the accident and those were being paid during that time and then so country had medical payment terms of obligations suburb ration rights or reside residing out of those payments property damage payments subrogation rights out of those payments so of course they submit a claim number every time they learn of an accident their insurer could be sued for something from an accident as well so they claim number is associated with an accident but basically councils argument is just that ok once you know about an accident then that dispenses with everything essentially his argument when they switched law firms to oversee to the strong law firm the only letter sent within two years nothing from the insured nothing from the to the law firm nothing from any other law firm or was it just a generic notice of representation letter that i will represent brenda meyer doesn't represent uninsured and if they are under insured or lose they may pay as you say anything specific about any claim of any time doesn't provide any damages or injuries witnesses any information whatsoever then the record is to avoid of any other communications prior to two years of the day of the accident completely devoid of any any reduce communication always have an undershirt waters play yes fill out a form yet anything like that until october twelfth of two thousand and twelve after the accident they write a letter saying we settled with the  there was there was a reserve while i know there was i going to the exact number the reserves are the allocution liability property under insured medical payments reserve but that was an internal document because someone recognizes that just like in a tort case if you get notice of an accident and your insurers involved well gosh they might file suit we have to open a reserve or someone might sue them or make a claim and if they don't that doesn't extend the session limitations for making a tort claim and never has that's why the  and you could see what was no disagreement within ten years or so it just extends forever there's no limit to just white limitation period out of the policy completely and that's addressed in start my argument in my briefs and several a case argument that specific argument was rejected by the trial court relied on the published case law on that very argument and issue in a very clause here the exhaustion clause going to sion is when you pay a claim now disagreement if you  obviously you can't have a disagreement you never make a claim because you buy by the tribal courts that you have a disagreement because you haven't if you haven't come to a resolution in a tar case if you don't come to a resolution you have to file suit within two years or you're out of luck there's no exception just because we don't have a meeting of the minds you have to then and knows cases the only thing that extends it is if someone says for example why won't file suit within two years while we continue to go shit will you agree to actual policy itself and then there's a there's a there's the policy for which of the first party and the third party coverages property coverages and then they have the there's the illinois amendment to the provisions always below the didn't didn't object and didn't really raise that issue really was always that this letter of representation was sufficient under way all the decision that was contrary to every other district in the state really contrary to what the supreme court ruled on whitehead that this was somehow not perfect but a sufficient demand for arbitration as required by the policy that's what they argue principle of the law and of course even here all though if you look at hale decision that initial letter mentioned under insured motors claiming they sent an uninsured motorist claim form to the surety within two years of their counsel within two years and there are other circumstances that we're totally different here where there was the absence of even the word under court would apply it to your limitation for vision and the policy or adopt a three year wisconsin tort limitation the supreme court found that no you know my public policy would require adopting follow miscounts and tort law it two years was sufficient for the limitation period and the white house where whitehead court quoted i quoted there their discussion about in whitehead there had been a claim within two years for under insured motorists benefits and they referred to that claim they said clearly a claim would not be sufficient legal action as required by this policy to satisfy that provision it wasn't so they said even under insured motorists claim within two years was not damage tort claim that the agent breached their duty that there's no damages there's no injury didn't say where she has a hangnail or a broken or amputated foot there's nothing no medical no nothing of any tiny nothing if you look at paragraph forty forty of their off of their supreme court opinion it will really give you the the answer to the question in this case as well and i thank you very much judge you actually can find the information you were looking for in their brief they conveniently quoted the section for uninsured under richard motorist it's on page seven of their brief and i'll read it to you verbatim arbitration if we had an insured disagree over whether the insured is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle or if agreement cannot be reached on the amount of damages either party must make a written demand for arbitration that is the only clause you will find in the policy whatsoever dealing with a formal written demand for arbitration in the contract area whether there was legal entitlement issues well that's the key to this case your honor i'm glad you asked because what you have is a situation where country opened up with you i am clave and if you look at the automated claims transactions which is opened up to you i am clean and in the sat back and they waited to see what would happen and then when it came time for them to pay on the e u i provisions they came up with this is why you didn't make a formal demand for arbitration that's not required under the policy and i know the council got up here and you know in the this is required is only season three is required while the policy itself doesn't require it and that's what's controlling in this issue the policy itself does not require a formal written demand for arbitration as a condition precedent to the provision of you i am covered there why an agreement cannot be reached it's just if an agreement cannot be reached in this case i think remit could that be reached because the first step in assigning them out to the  never have him in my misreading the case though i don't think you're misreading case by i think where are we having a dispute is whether or not sufficient notice was provided to country regarding the jury to decide whether sufficient notice would was sure the plaintiff provided notice to country companies through her agent that she was involved in a motor vehicle crash that she is the same personal that she was making a claim for property and as well that triggered country then to open up a medical payments reserve the property damage or reserve in an under insured motorists coverage reserve disagree there be no reason for them to open up an under insured motorists reserve unless they had a belief that there would be an exposure under richard morris and in this case they even went to far as to confirm what the tortfeasor limits were of their policy as a part of that investigation why would you do that unless you had some reasonable basis of belief that a claim would be pursued for that coverage and had requested that they be paid as well considered by country as a part of there's also the letters and corresponds from country that into our office in regards to the reduction of under insured motorists coverage benefits as a result of payments made under the medical payments coverage so again getting back to our original argument which we believe that there is an issue of fact as to whether or not country had sufficient notice of the claims that the plaintiff was making which included under insured motorists claimed to believe that