whether or not a person's residency one of a necessarily prohibits that person from holding a contractual residency in the premises and the fourth is whether or not only and it's in a preference as regards to finding whether or not contractual insurance exist weekend or a week or two weeks vacation but at least over a month's time ordering had two months and the fact that there is no contest edition as to whether or not bella have a physically present in the house we need to turn to the real issue in this case which is  it and again when i looked at illinois case law the intent was determined by looking at the actions of the person who is presidency in question and i thought that was a very interesting point that the appellate court seemed to consistently make when determining contractual residency because it prioritize objective facts based inquiries into a person's activities over that of an engine vidual stated subject to a state of mind and this makes sense because when you're dealing with a person who's saying something they can say whatever they like after that but that does not really prove what their subjective state of mind was at the time of the insurance incident but i looking at get a check to actions of the individual and trying to determine intent for example such as where a person slapped where they ate where they worked where they socialize with their income you can make more of an object a determination of the circumstances of the person's that person took at the objective actions that they did for example where person kept their clothing or personal hygiene items isn't it a very they subject of the intended the stay on the night in question so i think that this is very telling in this case point is there any dispute that shortly after arriving there and before the incident that gives rise to the union lawsuit that he visited with the recruiter no makes sense because when you are there for military purposes for example i live in illinois if i went and enlisted tomorrow and they said fair you need to go to afghanistan i wouldn't change my residency or even my contractual home or my insurance are important communications correct the military defense is a different issue than empire resident i think it's a fact an object a fact that points towards the towards his state of mind at the time that he was place you know where it's coming you don't live with your mother somewhere else and that's entirely the courts if that's entirely the court's position in the supreme court's explanation franklin when they talk about home of record they use the term usual residency usual residents talk first to a person's typical place of abode so where they typically reside and then remember again we're dealing with is contractual issues as residency a person can have more than one place where they reside and from a contractual perspective they're not bound to just one place the franklin court was very clear that when you're talking about a standard measure of state affiliation one looks to where an individual  typically has ties to a certain point or location so in that case you know a simple inquiry would be were a person sleeps from works so yes i do think that when and if the joel signs i document stating this is my home  record and i'm not going to change it the entire time that i'm in the military service and the legal ramifications of that is that after the person leaves that service they are returning to that same state and location that they used then yes that's  well i think they have a burden of proof in showing back upon hundreds of evidence that aaron carter lives there but i think when you're making a legal determination as to whether or not the facts support a finding of contractual residency legally speaking  the court is obligated to infer that in favor of my client and finding of coverage in the case i'm referring to i time to deny it it's under dispute and if the household president has no meaning and is undefined in that the contract it's construed most strongly against the insurer and they're really in favor of the insurer who of course the proposed insured in this point in support of my position but also when you're looking at whether or not you're looking at a legal construction of a residency issue under state of illinois law it is supposed to be construed in favor of my clients earning income so we look at reality and actions of that this case law and his actions are pretty clear he received wages in rochester he lived in rochester with this family shared a room with his brother there he had a key to the rochester looking at a person stated intent versus the actions the actions carry a significantly more weight especially when you're dealing with the situation better than the right questions are a period more weight but is his intention his subject case our supreme court case that i know of has ever said you cannot take the subjective issues of a riposte insurer into account but all of the ones that i have reviewed say book two actions of  your argument it's probably the at me uncle and this young man were not thinking if that was going to be his permanent abode i mean that i or contractual residence permit c of permanency of abode is one of the things you use in determining what residence it is and when you've got somebody visiting a recruiting the think again i don't think that permanency is a weekend or a week but when you start talking about in terms of several weeks or several months then yes i think that that is and in this case jim throwing hand was not planning on leaving in february to join the air force he to look at that issue of permanency is the natty insurance company for some argue right there you have a family that had a home in one city and was planning at some point to a second home and the person literally split their time almost fifty percent between the two residences and the court specifically found that there was residency for the disputed property even though timeless that he fully and there was an intent to not always remain at one of the properties in the future back well under cincinnati you can have more than one residency in the court determined that that was the case because of the fact that even though they might have an intent to leave which is what i think you're getting at with mr bradley and in terms of permanency it doesn't mean that he didn't have residency for the why of it in the still stay at the property question especially when you're looking at th  under that reasoning we know that relic really hand could be found to reside at our rochester address even if one accepts that he's going to eventually have a second residency somewhere else contractually speaking or if one even again that makes sense if i buy the cation home tomorrow and i only want to spend three months there of the year prior residence while for contractual purposes i would certainly hope so and if there's a fire well i have a business that maybe i open a second  that and i live here now but i go to chicago for that second business and maintain a second apartment maybe i'll even spend all my time in the next apartment for contractual rest and see purposes the fact still remains that i'm not far having a second residence based upon the fact that i we don't have all this it took you know you know the year to go away or there are different stories about deployment or if the question would be whether this contract will residency right on february twenty third and then my answer is still in the i think the factor that makes this case interesting if not unique among its residents cases that you could sure is this claiming residence i don't recall any of the other cases really involving that's usually do not what i said sort of analysis but here we have that's what i think is the we have yeah i was not a resident and i believe that's also borne out by the facts so i think just to get back here question just i think it's both relevant to consider the i think it usually does in most of these these cases but in this case and i you know i i'm always hesitant to use the word unique but i think this one maybe where the insured is is just claiming coverage on his own that's why i think mail you know this roommate during this brief i think about a six week transitional time between the time it comes up starts living with aunt and uncle and the time he's supposed to go to the well at the time the knife incident happens basically  think we combine both subjective statement of the tent and that's why we went back last time was to the cern that intent you know coupled with the evidence which i think tends to show just the opposite of residence  but that he was in this transitional phase i think it becomes really a lacking in question was his intent was not to make this is residence as that term sender stood but he just sort of way er of the document that's at issue change simply because the insurer is not claiming it for whatever reason it's made up the principle is you construed against the insured and provided benefit you were supposed to receive it well would it make good public policy to change it for some because for some reason this individual does or not doesn't want to have the b policy that's i mean that's what i was thinking and i'm like i'm going to answer this but other than public policy basis i mean if the court wants to say it's more important than we that we create some kind of fund for that certainly had no problem construing things twice and finding that that wasn't so i don't i really don't think that we're in that situation might say well he doesn't have anything anyway so he protects his aunt now go from mom from greece insurance rates or trial and tribulation i don't i don't know how great your fix and there certainly are evidence the military so that is out what happened he had answers filed saying he was deployed when he was not in fact a ploy that's also in the exhibits that have been cached that were discovered during p i case so that's what happened with them and that's to during this deposition which was attached to my said i was not a player when i said i was deployed and i don't know why anybody would say i was deployed for discovery purposes and so that's what happened but i'd like to touch a little bit more about this issue of him planning on leaving to the military because it's an hour of walk when somebody joins the military their legal residency their contractual residency their drama sile even the state that they have their driver's license and does not change and the military does that type of military work that you're going to be doing that you even go to school that last five to eleven months and that is why when you sign up in the military you have a home of record because if you're using mom because maybe you're eighteen years old you know a little  legal residency or anything because the military might say for your great year you're going to live in alabama next year you're going to alaska next year you're going to florida especially for full time active duty status now he joined the reserves so  again that doesn't play into it it was just a illinois eventually but that that was later so that's why the military as a matter of law does not have you change your state legal residency because every time they do somewhere else on orders to go serve for the country you have to was using that address home a record in that contract he signed says that i and this is the quote i understand my home of record in place in the liston i'm a t v for one which is a federal document that the court it's a contract document that the court can take quotation usual presidents and that's under franklin the us supreme court case i spoke about earlier and the term usual residence is used in the franklin case is very telling i think because it doesn't refer to legal residency it were and it doesn't refer to anything more than the person's typical place of abode it refers to their standard measure of state affiliation james kelly and had no state affiliation with missouri at the time is only affiliation was with this residency and the fact that you joined this military branch or attempt to join this military branch does not change the fact of where he actually had a contractual residence at the time that he signed that document to him list it had no legal impact on his contractual residency whatsoever as a matter of law because the military wasn't going to change any of that anyway and again looking forward i mean he came back to me so he came back to illinois but when you talk about legal residency i think in this case it's really important not to confuse legal action and that's what the appellate courts have said across the board in every district that i've checked in regards to this case you look to the objective actions of the person at the time of the event and the objective actions at the time of this event is that every single time