counsel my client is asking this court to reverse the circuit court granting defendants motion for summary judgment little bit of a history of the litigation this was this case was filed in the summer of and fourteen and plaintiff's amended complaint was then on file in january two thousand and fifteen since then the allegations in the case have not changed at all since since january two thousand and fifteen  the parties have appeared before judge lawrence in clay county circuit court twenty times for status conference is to go over ten depositions and we spent several years working this  extent and what damages there were several years later d him and filed a motion for summary judgment especially for the purpose of that motion conceding the fact that they were negligent and that i know that they would if it went to trial they would dispute that but for purposes of their motion they're conceding that at least we have evidence that they were negligent and that plaintiff was damaged by that negligence but they filed a legal defenses saying that breaker box on the side of their building and then they had electrical contractor who took from the breaker box test a bunch of wires and then amaranth connected those wires to the overhead transformer latest allegations are that amarin set up the germination basically the connection in such a manner that water was allowed to get into the conductors the wires and oh this create a lot of problems one it for road wires but even more importantly the water is allowed to whip down through the wires all the way into plaintiff's breaker box which is supposed to be waterproof gabbett and six hundred hours responding to these property damage including and they had to replace the rebirth of hers flying in from various states and though they have not done so yet they have electrical contractor who tell them tells them that they will have to replace the wires as well so there's much property damage and they had to spend a lot of time responding to that part of the class allegations are shall be designed to limit the likelihood of moisture penetration into the cable or such penetration is detrimental to the cable and section three hundred and thirty three dollars b which says cable accessories and joints shall be designed to limit the likelihood  in this case in which he says that airman violated any se those those provisions specifically and and then also another one used to say that there is a claim and they're citing on page ten and top there's eleven of our brief and it says somebody is not responsible or liable for damages to customers motor or any other equipment property not due to negligence of company and then there's another provision that says the company shall not be responsible nor liable for electric energy from and after the point at which the st passes to the wires or other equipment owned or controlled by the customer customer shop protect and save harmless company from all claims for injury or damage to persons or property occurring beyond said point except where injury or damage shall be shown to be occasioned solely by the negligence of the company well placed claims are due sound ordinary meaning of those two provisions while limiting amerinds liability in some situations clearly provide for claims that sound of negligence  caused by that rule rule slower than this course it's on page eleven of our brief and action to recover for such loss may be brought in the circuit court or any person corporation  charged unjust rates there's no claims for injunctive relief this is for money damages plentiful claim that this belongs in the circuit court and and that the court should should have exercised it jurisdiction  com ed for any damages that that stemmed from the storms where the power went out this is not a situation like that this is a targeted case where ammons negligence in designing the termination custis if it property damage to one plane and and there's no allegations and scheffler as far as i could tell that were where there are allegations that comment violated violation of the consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act and the reason i bring it up is because i wonder if there is a comparison of that can't fly and your allegation  here about the national electrical safety you understand where i'm going with this i'm just i think it might help your argument but it seems like to me the supreme court handle created the only commerce commission there's that part there's that section that plaintive cites to which says a violation of the rules and damaged that damage the stem from the violation of the rules you can bring a claim in the circuit court so i think that there's as a specific i just find it that i think we made this point in our brief when i discussed at when we discussed the dirty case and that the public  or there is a section that allows for claims to be brought in the circuit court specifically says that and it seems that the way hammond is arguing it and the way that circuit court applied it is there's no way that claim could be brought the circuit court and instead it should be brought in the commerce commission in terms of the consumer product the only thing i would i would say and to be quite frank with the i haven't seen that connection so i wasn't prepared to compare that to ours be happy if you did and that helped us out but but but i would say that the where this could be distinguished from scheffler would be that the fact that there are specific  violations of the any i c and time adams talks about that in his deposition the violations of the any a c and how that's how that's different and i believe that all of the defen in that plant should have filed it in the circuit court and they used the plain language of scheffler in motions filed by their where they say that you know claims for civil damages lie in the in the circuit court you know it's a little like their argument in mormon where they say oh yeah you should have yeah we're we might be liable but you should have you should have sued us for breach of contract rather than tort it's something you know if it's constantly i guess not disputing what the facts of the case are one thing that's pretty clear act i would say is that there's enough evidence on this record of negligence caused by amarin to cause damages to  plaintiff just just sort of sum up and of course i'll address whatever counsel says and in her argument is i don't think that the plaintiff and amarin made a mistake in working this case up  spending our clients money and time for four years for a trial this should be a case this should be a case that should be dealt with in the circuit court and and for those reasons and all the and donovan those cases involved and substantively similar facts and claims as well as the same issues and should govern the court's review here and going starting off with or the court in that case explained that although courts a load of claims for damages can be brought in the circuit court claims for reparations which actually include claims for inadequate service fall within the i c c exclusive jurisdiction and in that case the plaintiffs actually brought their claim pursuant to the public utilities act but going back to the public utilities act that is what's the basis of the plaintiff's claim here the ne s c e does not provide for any independent recovery for example i'm thinking of any ordinary negligence to at least one where you have an expert testify about a breach of a standard of care and that expert may rely upon certain standards like an efficient and reliable power and they were alleging that the telly was negligent with respect to its planning process and maintaining its infrastructure similarly plaintiff's hero alleges in its complain applicant's theory and that falls within the circuit courts exclusive jurisdiction but the supreme court of the illinois made clear that it's not the label of the claim nearly saying that one is seeking damage must look at the nature and substance of the allegations to determine whether they are in fact claims for damages as as it relates to assessing jurisdiction seeking damages for allegedly in effect if service or infrastructure similarly plaintiff's claim concerns amerinds service setting up electrical service to the property and its infrastructure that is installing and men cheney its electrical equipment therefore the court should apply scheffler to the facts of this case and there is in our argument no meaningful distinction between this case and shuttler the fact that there are multiple plaintiffs in that case should not make it any different the law is the law the fact that the you know any s c violation was alleged there should also not make it just difference as i had already explained because that's merely the the basis to analyze whether there is an alleged breach not an independent right of recovery which is what the public utilities act governs and ultimately as the shuffler part explains it is the nature of the allegations that the court must look at and not merely the labels for the claims and lastly the in both cases the plaintiffs are seeking damages for both property damage and financial losses that were allegedly that allegedly resulted from power outage as that the tell it iis that occurred as a result of the utilities alleged failure to adequately maintain its infrastructure he says cited by plaintiffs simply do not overcome the contractor of allegedly cutting down trees on the property on the plant his property without authorization the court determined that the prohibition of the public utilities act relating to vegetation management is like this case as being distinguished similarly the non presidential t says that mr wood was referring to from the i c c and mentioned in the briefing i'm should not affect the court's decision and never will say and there was no customer utility relationship implicated at the complainant was rather bringing his claim as a neighbor and property of law in that that are at issue here in that case and it did not take an actual conflicting there is no conflicting position here going back to s scheffler also address the question of the chair as mr would indicate looking at the utility tear at that govern the relationship between charges in cases of interruptions deficiencies or imperfections in electrical service both in the complaint and plaintiff's discovery response and even asked as mr  would argue here before the court plaintiff is seeking damages associated with interruptions and service and so therefore that pro rata reduction clause immediately applies as to bar plaintiff's claim and lastly as i explained the trust circuit court relied upon the donovan tapes in reaching its conclusion as to the economic loss doctorate in that case and the plaintiffs allege design install and maintain its electrical system properly amerinds alleged failure to seal the terminations and here is not unlike the county defendants staley or tool properly chlorinate its water system and yana both claims concern property damage that resulted as from the defendant's alleged negligence in maintaining its own property in this case the about let me ask you a question obviously you're getting into your discussion regarding the mormon doctrine and my question is the malls didn't manifest itself suddenly but our position would be that whether it is the occurrence or the manifestation over time i talked fifty's there were fifty seven dollars power outage as and as plaintiff's own evidence indicated the breakers weren't damaged instantaneously it they or not which we would agree with or whether it the damage manifests itself suddenly which can be said about the mold and where field it is of no difference here because both the occurrence and the damage here did not  evidence indicates that which is cited in the brief with quotations from his affidavit about it being a very slow process thank you so even even if the court assumes that the that it is necessary to look at add an exception the sudden or dangerous exception doesn't apply not only because it's not sudden or a dangerous but also because it did not involve damage to other property which also must be satisfied for the  those cases like here involve the water intrusion and the plaintiffs basically were arguing that defendant was negligent with respect to construction or maintenance or something of that nature with respect to one portion of their condo units and that that system because of the negligence caused damage to other portions of their property the courts there found that you know that didn't qualify as other property because it all only involves damage that was incidental to a qualitative fact similarly the damage to the break that under such circumstances where you have a plaintiff alleging the facts with regard to service says that the utility was contracted to provide those raised at the lower court so i don't have any s c provisions in front of me however throughout all of this litigation and looking at the complaints the basis for plaintiff's claim is the public utilities act as mr what explains in his argument the ne s c has been adopted by the i c c but he is supposed to maintain that system but it doesn't actually provide it isn't an independent statute allowing for recovery i have not seen anything at i will send the case law that indicates so and so the plaintiffs alleged in its complaint the public utilities act and that's the statute under which it brought its claim  if i understand your argument though then there are no ramifications for failure to comply with that any yes as far as you know and section that allows for claims in civil court and within that section it it talks about violations of i c c rules because i c c has adopted as its rules the any s c players position that  the facts in this case as to this are not that into spirit i guess the court would have to decide what they qualify as because what it what did happen is water did gradually trickle down these wires corroding the wires but the impact was sucked once it happened i mean there was no warning to the a part of b b apartments that the next time it rains you're going to have property damage you're going to have outages ok so that's kind of kind of the issue there although there is testimony on the record in terms of the suddenness that john brown noticed that it did happen more often when it rains so perhaps it overloaded it from from that standpoint but but in terms of how it relates to mere fields is yeah the water gradually trickled down but once it hit the breakers it was a sudden sudden bet that caused the damage one thing i'll say two is council brought up about you can't you can't talk about power outages there are fifty seven outages in and nine months in this case it's interesting because according to you know scheffler and other things you're not damages for power outages for say might not be allowed but what's interesting in this case is that it's property damage wish the probably get misled the arabs so it's an interesting it's an interesting case but what we're arguing it and one of the reasons there's testimony i believe from mr brown that they had to pay for the hotel rooms of all these kids because of these outages were not claiming that you know what or the law and didn't apply the correct summary judgment standard which says that it's a summary judgment is a drastic method of resolving the case and it should only be done when the movie parties right serve clear and free from doubt and given this case in the plain language of the tariff allowing for claims that sound of negligence in the plain language of the public utilities act which allows for claims brought in the circuit court it's