we've least call the first case premium to purchase under insured murderous coverage at three hundred thousand per person and three hundred thousand per currents and knowing what the common name frankly the reversal definition of split rights are did they reasonably expect based upon the statute the cost put on be under insured motorists that you buy the illinois supreme court's down and simple reading of the policy that the they were sustained serious bodily injury by the hands of an under insured motorists and they collected the first policy limits of death under insured road worst of one hundred thousand each  extension to rationing of the claim which injuries could not exceed one hundred thousand dollars that of course defies what the understanding can mean give us a split level policy is and it frankly  position of the earth and according to the judgment of the circuit court they would recover zero they can't be it can't be just reading the policy it can't be based upon the gloss given to the fia reading of the under insured motor statute and the decision or are the only supreme court with respect to what it is that this under insured motorists magic provides to an injured policyholder well i think nobody would dispute your i q the legal proposition that you're entitled to recover is subject to the policy where it's three hundred thousand dollars but you might not get policy provides for it but they're not entitled to a double offset and that's what they're getting here with me and there are a growing distinction between the coverage per person first is coverage for occurrence case to get around me we had a thousand dollars per accident and then we're not trying we understand acknowledge and agree that under no circumstances can even read be liable for more than three hundred thousand dollars worth of coverage we have never taken the position or the opponent says we have that we are entitled to recover more than three hundred thousand dollars that would of course  violence to the playing on ambiguous definition are forever the policy provides with respect to what the deeper occurrence limit provides infect if you look at the po snake oil but the results obtained here based upon the circuit court's decision is that we got poth we got absolutely something that's unfair to the web based upon my reading of the cases in my reading  eat the amount of your bodily injury liability coverage so i hope that answers your question sal we've also given you because i think it makes sense to do so with a better understanding of the case of this case we've given you here in the white three for a group with regard to the potential scenarios that could occur here and i think it's reasonably understandable for damages over one hundred thousand she's already recovered one hundred thousand she would recover nothing under the under insured motorists coverage what we would recover is since there's a three hundred thousand of the insured claimants injuries or damages are they could not recover more than one hundred thousand to be shared by them in some fish that can't be is not to read on and it was never the law i think he would have to talk a little bit decision of the circuit court still could not stand it could not stand because there are limits of liability here would still be three hundred thousand dollars not per person but for the total discussion it was made with respect that this is not a say a single room of policy it's a split when it was policy it's never even brought up the closest thing to it were as an argument that was made that the financial responsibility towards require that there be a split rim of policy in every case and just just you can't you pointed out that that was a not you mean first made in your reply brief and it was for that because slate you could never come to the conclusion that was reached from the circuit court in this case the next question is since you can't and shouldn't put the land aside you look at over the land and say if they come to the right result and if they came to the wrong result all right results what's the places for coming to that result you cannot tell but from reading the decision there was no citation there was no argument just a right is it is his lawyer sometimes complaints a judicial fire that's the ruling take it or leave it that's the ruling and that's how the i didn't believe it was written with regard to bat for sure in the case i don't know we tried to distinguish that the best that we corridor they received a hundred each it is a possible scenario in this case would be that they were divided out another two hundred thousand dollars so that they would be paying out three they would have received a total of three hundred thousand dollars because you're supposed to be corrupt in the same position that the rule of being heads or toward fees or politically insured thousand dollars worth of damage we were being tied up to recover three hundred thousand dollars you know one would could see a rope because of the one hundred thousand dollar offset we would get three hundred thousand dollars that is a combination of what not to put a limitation on what can be recovered at this stage but i don't for after any quotes or the insurance company for estimate quote to determine what is their maximum exposure here glad to sit down and you know that question he think and conclude with the fact that it's not often that we are privileged to come before the first district for argument thank you for inviting us to do so it's much appreciated thank you castle points there's never been a dispute that there's a split of policy it's never been contested by yury it's always been acknowledged second it's also clear from them they are dismayed that the defendant simply don't grasp the pays for the policy doesn't dictate that so the amount of coverage you look to the clear language of the policy if you look to the underlying public policy through the under under insured motorists coverage so really paid nine dollars murray nine dollars he was a movie under insured but that's why the title to recover under the under insured provision the policy subject to the reduction of set off sections no protected by the jury policy there's no dispute that both received the one hundred thousand dollars for two hundred thousand dollars total paid out on their behalf applying the clear language of the policy that two hundred thousand dollars paid to people that are protected by  put person in practice that little three hundred thousand leaving one hundred thousand is under insured motorists coverage which is exactly what the circuit court determines no not a state of clear language change that limits to put a person limit there's no basis whatsoever for doing this there's none at all they just do it because it achieves with the the end result that they want now when they reply they change the argument  other insurance provisions if those are just additional issues regarding the whether other policies were applied or whether the allocation of who pays one hundred thousand it does not change the ultimate ruling as to how to settle sort of the appl follow the reasoning and decision overland there's no reason to ignore it it's probably decided and it should result in the affirmation of the underlying case the no one judge and additionally they simply in addition rewriting the policy true stated that in reviewing the legislative history and the purpose of the underlying the undershirt motors covers said we believe that the legislature did not intend to provide that the insurer would receive greater stated that public policy does not require this court to invalidate clearly written policies language is something to avoid to avoid disappointed in the insured i'm sure they would like the full three hundred thousand dollars i'm sure they'd each take three hundred thousand dollars on the  one hundred thousand each two hundred thousand dollars tara that's the amount of payments received by them that is sources the reduction of the uninsured motorist coverage the richer three hundred reduced by two hundred they're left with one hundred your policy they would each get one hundred thousand dollars because that's the limit the absolute limit on the entire policy is three of the thousand councils would have you believe that they each get three of the thousand dollars for nine hundred thousand told that's simply not correct that st the limit of protection the cap racks of fifty thousand on its head and is a proper soul searching over the specifically addressed this point and say that's possible you could get nothing if the underlying limits are exhausted you get nothing am bothered by an argument that says that with regard to the enhanced premium payments that their record is inadequate or incomplete at the record it's actually complete because they i also heard counsel acknowledges i guess he needed to acknowledge that the if third person were in the car and was injured substantially then the coverage that they s which they receive the premium based upon the language that is not in the policy in my opinion there would be no coverage available for anybody under under insured more risk of rich that is not what the statute provides for that's not what the statute con same time they are required to honor their unambiguous promise that they will provide coverage of three hundred thousand per person not to exceed three hundred thousand per occurrence the results here you say result that if one looks in the mirror and contemplate three people injured here that nothing is recovered why did we buy the coverage we got absolutely nothing for money to the extent that counsel has suggested to the court that we have not made any ambiguity argument