a default rule that the transfer fees and sales tax must be paid if substantiated in writing and gives a permissive option to the insurance company to pay that or those particular items in a cash lump sum settlement up front without substantiation but that's permissive the mandate we did repair replace the damaged the defendant chose to pay for the loss so what is the measure of compensation that they that they owed this for a total loss because it is a total loss  necessarily owed the actual cash value that limited liability you know that that's the most the insurance company will pay that's the nature of a limit on liability insurance companies don't have an obligation to pay policy limits  as a matter of contract interpretation in the case by case analysis and insurance companies can cyst on substantiation of loss and that's precisely what the regulation specifies that if substantiated your client gets these items they were not substantial and insurance policy again i think is this potentially conflating two separate arguments returning to the regulation the insurance policy makes no reference to the right through to returns policy says that in the event of a loss we'll pay for you say well what am i owed under the insurance policy i suffer entire los my vehicle the only measure of loss that is then provide within the policy is the actual cash which is defined dance replacement cost of the maybe we're talking past each other and insurance contracts are very specific kinds of contract they're their context specific it's not an ordinary contract and it's not explained all insurance policies have a that's a promise to pay insurance contracts that have lots of exclusions and then exceptions to exclusions and then insurance contracts always have a limit of liability which is the most the insurer will pay it's not a promise to pay policy limits in every single case and that has a specific definition so council i think if you look at appendix page fifteen dollars says the law says we will pay for refers to losses going on to pendent sixteen but then on page fifteen it defines a loss and it says lost means direct an accidental loss or damage to the audio including its equipment or other insured property so i think what judge sykes is saying is that if the law says defined as the damage to the auto that comfort that coverage provision doesn't necessarily refer to the replacement car well so they were under seven dollars a painful loss it is our contention that the amount that they chose to pay was the actual cash value which is the limit of liability their letter says we're right and there's no evidence that the value of the the amount of that loss was less than that limited liability we are saying that the amount of that loss was delimit of why bill it was the actual cash value because what is the actual cash value it is the replacement cost of the automobile so if you total your vehicle to pay to be compensated for that loss you should be entitled to the replacement cost less depreciate wise last defined  on a fourteen donor definitions its actual cash value is the replacement cost of the order probably less at the limit of liability it's a ceiling it's not an obligation to pay the same and i agree with you that that is that is was a limit of liability but you're not telling us why the contract obligated then to pay less than the obligation comes from the fact that having suffered the total loss of its vehicle there is no payment less than that the met actual cash value  considered for your loss except loss is defined in the contract as damage to the audio including its equipment it doesn't define it as the placement value or the actual cash value of the car of the car so you're paying you're paying contract claim you have to point to contract language that supports a promise to pay me replacement cost and there is no promise to pay costs in our in our complaint we paid it we pointed where my name is kimberly conscious and i'm here on behalf of the geico defendant applebee's in this case your honor is absolutely correct this is a matter of policy interpretation this is a clear policy and the limitation of liability provision this turns contract interpretation can attach so counsel can you help me in looking at the contract so can you give me your definition of loss of what was geico obligated to pay  defined as direct an accident lost of for damage to the auto and because it's loss or damage to the auto that does not include the ancillary sales tax and fees the point and that is precisely why under section three that we just discussed does not include does not provide coverage to the sales tax and fees the pla and fees are to be paid in the event of a total loss so the code would have required you to reimburse him for his fees if in fact you had replaced the car and submitted those to you not because the policy the purpose of the code that's exactly right and in fact went to the complaint alleges that if he had submitted documentation within the time that geico would have paid as it is required to do under the code and it is clear that illinois law incorporates it ministry of codes into policy in as if fully set forth there in so policies are plaintiff's argument that the policy doesn't include ninety one thousand nine hundred and eighty c's mandatory provisions is just incorrect under illinois law in fact i go is obligated to plaintiff conflates the mandatory and permissive provisions in ninety one thousand nine hundred and eighty see geico could have elected to pay sales tax and fees at the time of the total loss settlement but it did not instead it followed the mandatory plaintiff also argues in its very end in his briefing that geico was obligated to either one repeat the mandatory provisions and nine hundred and nineteen thousand see in order to avail itself of them or to exclude explicitly sales tax and fees from the coverage in order to not pay them played it is wrong in both counts st there's no obligation for geico to exclude something that isn't covered and nd permissive mandatory provisions under nine under the administrative code are included and incorporated into the policy but permissive provisions are not so not only does plaintiffs ask the court to rely on a limitation of liability in the policy but then he also asked the court to take a permissive provision in the administrative code and read it into the policy because the district court correctly found that the insuring provision in geico policy does not cover sales tax and fees and because the court correctly found that plaintiffs reliance on the limitation of liability provision in order to argue that sales tax and fees are covered is just too speculative are both correct and should be a