fact that here there isn't the slightest indication in any other transcript or in an order as to what might have been when the judge sorry lost the coin toss is that what you're suggesting i would never say  the defense also control setup and if that part so you know in most insurance cases the reason the insurance company has to look the insured if their own lawyer has there's two theories of liability one of which is covered by the other which is not and the concern is the insurance company is going to force the judgement into the non covered area where here we have just the us we have insured with his own attorney and isn't there concern that the insured is going to force the the some into the covered option as opposed to the uncovered option well the insured pass to if by no stretch can it be viewed as compensatory for what i'm out why isn't it why isn't this a penal statute and cases set out many cases and they were packed fax machine hours and they know they knew this was a very aggravating problem five hundred dollars in excess of what you suffered when you to individual plaintiffs and not to the government and that's not all a question of whether it will but it is a factor to be looked at it's also intended to provide incentive of private parties to act as private i know by the supreme court but what i want to tie to is the research which she set out on behalf of alexander panel and she said that on a national basis the majority of cases hold that this is a you it's not making me feel for the toward committed against me that's compensatory damages i mean if you drive a car you run into somebody and you've suffered physical injuries you've suffered some damage to your car or the idea of portlaw is to make you whole for the injuries you suffered and in fact if i've suffered no physical injuries at all then they're just going like out of me is not apply here that is something the policy is we don't want to permit insuring wrongdoers who are subject to punitive damage provisions we want suppose i guess i'd like to say there's one other thing that for many of their arguments and with great respect my friend what he wants this whole do is to get into a way back machine and go back to the old days   deterrent deter others from doing the last backs and such as they claim was done here by this fax on that seat by forty three of the records which were sent to fax machines apparently which  say a lot of these cases they cited more because they've been involved in money that you can look at the purpose of the c p a that's one thing then you have to look at illinois law and illinois law with respect to insurance they took sure  those are the kinds of things that the idea of bio not insuring came to damage awards right address and if you have a statute that is designed as a deterrent and to instill retribution in the form of five hundred dollars back then you have to ensure that would allow someone to send faxes with impunity were in unity because at the end of the day they five hundred dollars for a fax mere compensation and not here to let nature the cost of the paper the toner the ink the use of the phone line the monetary nanosecond washing use of the fax machine compensatory or pewter there are other issues significant discretion fact they have cited one remotely similar to this this is a case where an insurance company through a very lengthy and detailed two into that the facts another attorney says to defense counsel hired by shared a mutual you're in a conflict and he's worth the side and this other tourney takes over the insured then enters into the  of the policy and but let me ask you something it's a little bit different here that it's about the law that should be applied in this case now the the district court found that the insurer did not act intentionally so what if we had the situation where the the case went to trial other insured testified he didn't act and intentionally and the verdict came down not case that's that's not this case is not the converse of sex data from the first district this is not my older computer this is a different case these the supreme court also said the absence of allowing the insurer to enter that type where if you look at the language legally obligated to pay as damages you say well if the carrier abandoned the insured then the argument that there is no legal obligation to pay is damages according to then chief justice mcmorrow is the argument  of the insurer would have settled on the merits of the plaintiffs claim but i have to ask is a reasonably crude person using his own money or recently prudent person who doesn't share the past at the end of the day they have no exposure or no obligation because if there's no insurance coverage or even if there isn't if there's no insurance coverage they still hang up the settlement agreement is referred to throughout the go to place it is set forth in the  fascism receive errors how we all stop telemarketers which is the other part of the tease here because probably everyone was sitting in their home at one point when the last week got off six thirty hit romney or somebody summit of the court has not passed muster under the supreme court's decision well what this court will have to do to embrace this type of settlement agreement is basically to say look our insurance industry if you're defending under a perhaps it should be church has no rights is simply not true lastly i think it's important to note that they still haven't told you what the  should have done differently what the insured could have done differently in the practical world and they haven't told you why this case why it was a case of no liability how it could have been defended for lesser money how could it settle for lesser money  they simply say well the subtle didn't we don't have to pay and they have not told this report and not told that they didn't know about every stage of the settlement proceed what they said was they weren't a part of it and what they