opening and then we're going to give him two or three minutes depending on what he reserves for a reply to the cross but the fundamental issue of this case is had we gone through the proper analysis we would then have concluded that based on the cancellation request that the parties to greet any part of the commercial policy was to terminate on november fifteenth now if the insurer wanted to after requesting a change in the policy period wanted to then extend the policy best that's on the part between the insurance company the insurer and the insurer but what sort of analysis or what sort of investigation did the insurance company undertake to determine what mind that the insurer was as in the dark about this lawsuit as we were they did sure nothing in her record suggests that the insured her self made any specific recommendation or representations concerning is all so you're of is just not provided for in the playoffs hit the it's just not something that can happen under these circumstances once that ossie period which changed in the member fifteenth if we wanted then to get to change it we have to go through think and not not really knowing because i was there i think it's not difficult for you to appreciate it possibly using general was not interested in reading stating a policy for which they are sending a re that's the be the provision that you were saying was triggered it was not in fact for her because there was no that that provision addresses actual changes to the policy maybe it had a broadening of the scope coverage that make that create the parties agreement in total intricate to that agreement is the policy current and there's a young courage attorney was i was beat with the concept that the first thing you exception to that biggest did it change the terms of the coverage or how much coverage was no but it changed it did nonetheless change a significant provision in that odyssey i do believe again in the alternative i believe that there are numerous faster create material issue that preclude the entry suffering freshman on in favor the focus was is that but i think that focus was improper i think the proper focus is what was the insurance and take in terms cancellation the only thing he have what if what if the judge says the only an insurance policy and it must have for we can make a determination if coverage is avail of unless the court has additional questions i'll take my three minutes three minutes at generalization is false is there any is there any authority for their position that the authority of the region was limited to those actions outlined in absolutely not in fact the opposite is true no idea what that satar didn't say but the insured knew was that in illinois if i wanted to do anything with houston general it had to go through their age their requires no means to contact houston general and didn't give any indication that there was any limit on those that work for it and certainly the agent himself didn't down trodden akon clues and based on his quote his response to the nov thirteenth letter  he didn't take it well i don't have authority to do this but of course not it was a good many times we've only shown three it was a telephone call and then a written follow up and then of course the april memo from him and all of those clause in a contract that says all choir negotiations are integrated into this says nothing about post contractual written agreements of the parties which is exactly what we have a ability the air safety and i can bring cases and one of the indications of the brief was well if you were going to do something with regard to the contract with regard to the policy for cancellation there's logical conclusion used in general could send out a letter to all of us and sure of saying please provide notice of any claims to x y z company and when all this insurance did that if they could come back and say oh no policy said you were i dated august thirty one two thousand and six he makes reference to that theory that september seventeenth two thousand and one correspondence from joseph to houston general indicated that it was sole insur sound to the extent that these identical letters go out with the identical language that might be the equivalent of exclusive poll to poll in shares i don't understand why you think that the use of exclusive down the line can be inter stepping up with love and in fact that's exactly my next point because the judge sad the only way to reward houston general is if you can force used in general to take the place of paul's state wide and westfield and the  westfield stands on its own and this is the part where i don't understand why you think houston general should stand in for westfield when westfield is is if the eat in sugar r c climbing and r c plumbing has i direct  the discretion of the state of the contractor it should fall on where the cause of action occurred who's responsible party and in this case i see plumbing certainly is one of those and that's why the judge said there's no damage here because you're  houston general to be the sole and down to core of it all so what does that mean for the terms of how much houston general would have to pay that means that houston general would have to pay that eight hundred fifteen thousand dollars last field pay either cases out there where the general contractor has in fact to ensure this because these guys might be equally culpable for the underlying injury and so both of them have to defend the general contractor are there cases like that don't know whether these are equally culpable party i mean these are the selective tender rule of yours where the insured has coverage under two policies that provide for coverage for the  company and would have paid the settlement that was aleko both to joseph construction and that settlement was one point six eight million dollars minus fifty thousand dollars and then and then but there's there's a problem that arises from there because there was some discussion about how the umbrella policy was not triggered and yet houston generally has a lot has a policy limitation of one million dollars so where is the other but insurance professional i am concerned with mr marcos relying on mr ross able for representation given his understanding the of the insurance industry so the point i would like to make is where is the reasonable reliance on that representation i just really concerned about a professional who should understand bet is that despite sar all and we also i think we're losing sight of the focus the question is not what was the intention of mr marcos mr rogers what we need to define coverage be terminated mistral was the field manager for that company he clearly testified love for november we stopped working we did not do through the policy when it's simply just reinstating it because the policy doesn't change that's what the judge said well and and that's i respectfully disagree with the trial judge because the policy period is such a thumb commensal term ignition of an insurance policy that to change that is changing the coverage because you're changing determination day this case is a perfect example of why that's important well if that's the case so i think it goes back to counsel's point it may be a slight modification is that where is the endorser for the change of the policy day or the termination fact that requiring remanded further proceedings and truck work and failing all that i that we request the court consider arguments on the other issues and the  then by golly when are you going to do it and insurance companies will always sit on their hands because you know if they didn't deliver let me let me turn that around a little bit if you didn't do it here i reported it to all these actions seeking section one fifty five attorney fees from between insurance company to insurance company absolutely not you know that is within the discretion of the trial shall not talking about the request i'm talking about the granted but but again you know the section one fifty five feet are not only to make the insured or it's a sunny hole but to punish the insurance company and what it did here was set on its hands when it absolutely should not have done it and then regarding the double penalty even more so that we have not just the ball which didn't even come into play our case they may have notified us ok so that maybe that may not be a penalty at all there was no penalty of them whatsoever so in that case paying out under that settlement agreement should have gone and it was their intent should be paid by he sent gen one last question are you saying that the circuit court reached out and he answered a question that really should not be answered at all that in fact it was a concurrent duty on the part of westfield to