good morning the attorneys will be arguing the case appeal from and for the entering judgment and opening entered by judge soriano in the circuit court after a jury trial at which both sides were able to present all the evidence they wanted is that i view the case to the jury and the jury made a issue he said that there was no duty insurance producer in illinois to talk with the client and to review the application with the client and to be sure the information submitted to the insurance sunny provides that there's a duty of ordinary care and insurance producer and then the question becomes what insurance producers do to comply with that duty of ordinary care the panties in the motions  they addressed that question because there were questions of the judge how far will you let the experts go and just syriana correctly ruled at that time i will not let the experts say that there's a duty on the on the producer i wrote let the experts say that the producer has certain obligations to in these performing his duties with the insured much like a lawyer or a factor the other question is you have a duty of ordinary care to your client yes question is did you comply with that duty or did you reach that duty and expert witnesses come in whether it's even now practice medical malpractise insurance malpractise experts come in and expert witness named davis who said that he didn't comply that he didn't have to do those things and that's exactly what was discussed by the writers with judge to reanimate during the motion eliminate phase that's exactly what was submitted to the jury under the usual instruction for professional negligence that we all follow one o five under the civil pattern instructions and specifically says the lab does not say how a reasonable specific request for a coach yes and that's certainly true if they if the producer is not asked to get coverage for the client then of course the producer can't be responsible for not doing what anyone else is or implication that from neutral i think would be for that and not really an insurance mr warner had been the producer for office freshens for many years and he had routinely gone about it gotten coverage on an annual basis when the previous coverage was expir actually testified when really and said we will not renew in two thousand and two he testified office furnish would not have to ask me to go get coverage for them because i knew rationing of that and he didn't try to do that by that's perfectly proper and see exactly what the insurance producer should do to comply with the purchase and that is he had a specific request for coverage mr meyer office freshens would want coverage on his business and his december there was a meeting and at that meeting mr corbett was introduced to mr meyer and his assistant mr johnson mr wright was present he was present during the entirety of the meeting although mr myers was not and he came in and went out on the application was completed and there is no factual dispute that mr clinton was the one who made every entries on the application except for signatures the representatives of office freshens meyer and johnson testified we did not provide the information that later on became the basis for american families declamation of coverage for the they said we did not provide information that's on the corner of the page on their property insurance it's a tiny little entry five year however of this of the five years condition it's blank and what we're looking at in this case is the relationship between the insured and his producer that's the latest word it comes from the statute but it used to be called broker and that any agency relationship between them really have been  as a producer due to comply with the duty of ordinary care if the duty of ordinary care says that he does not have to sit with the with his client and the potential insured and go through the application and try to find out for sure what you want and how are we going to put down on these forms and so on if the evidence is that that's not part of the activity of a producer then the jury could find in favor of the producer and so here we have and there's another one where some babysitting went on in the household and that wasn't disclosed and so there's an exclusion for business is conducted in the house and number of cases get really back to the point that producers a reasonably qualified insurance producer should do mr patterson was that the standard of you know was a pattern of contact that the two parties always at in the past their history and in fact what they did in the past was that to the insured to be sure that early information was correct now and that then those situations than if he did that with the knowledge and consent and authority of the client to parts functions isn't there sort of this implied assumption of duty in that case whereas it's not the same situation on this replacement coverage well there's two reasons why that's west milford well news this is a specific application that is different than the former accord application he actually had submitted via court application to american family and that's what resulted in the bank but then he knew from and he told mr myers we have to have this meeting because they have a more expensive application that we have to go through and call them a asking questions and so forth there's evidence that mr werner did not know and i have to say this did not know who was five years or ten years old so he probably didn't be responsible for those entries themselves w responsible as i was probably credible with that information down but the jury did find that the producer here mr werner did not fulfill his duty to his client to review these pieces of information with the plan to be sure they're accurate on the defense side of course they had mr dakers and mr davis says no that's not part of the insurance look at it the producers obligation to  this information with the insured drink and effect question to decide they had two experts typical situation a professional negligence case back question to settle if we agree with mr nec though that the insurance producer under the evidence that he produced in his testimony should have talked to the insured about these entries or do we believe mr davis that that is not the pattern of conduct that is not the act sit with your client and go through the application that is the kind of conflict for compilation that the marshall court talks about getting fat specific about they have a duty to sit with the client do they have a duty to post it in the to have a duty to file a lawsuit in time to have a duty to answer auditory school rectally the cases don't and i'll say that the cases say you have a duty to exercise reasonable care as a lawyer and then the experts come in and they say what does a reasonably competent lawyer do same as medical cases that you know is there a case that says if a doctor in a fracture has a duty to take an x ray now there are cases  doctor has a duty to the patient to exercise reasonable care with physician under the circumstances circumstances vary and so if the experts say yes you should take an x ray or expert says no i didn't have to take the x ray it and that it's extremely distinction distinguishable and the reason is this the issue was whether or not the insured had gotten fled the coverage or should've gotten flood coverage in addition to the sewer backup coverage that the broker did up paying for it he actually rejected the flood coverage before the case was first tried in a federal court against the insurance company and me claim it received and one point one do with whether or not the broker sure they have gotten their coverage because the insured had rejected flood coverage when it was discussed so the question then became  meant the plight i would like to make from that case this court says there was no standard of care evidence presented as to whether reasonable poker would do so the pla the case in the illinois state court system did not bring in experts witnesses and did not make evidence of what a reasonably careful producer would do which is what instruction runner five requires pla you think that's pretty clear to a business person and i think you need to have better explain th saying just as a point of clarification in your briefs you talk about the fact that the learner and the insurance agency did satisfy the duty to purchase a replacement policy and you're explaining different facts decided at the trial he wanted to present different issues for the jury to frank as to whether or not it was a producer or not a producer the evidence is on her breath admitted that he remained a producer and during this scenario came a producer for the agent for the insured as well as a producer for the company sure the scenario would have been he insured as their broker as their agent and the company as their agent  the policy and you have to reject one for the insured one for the company and that's why the case is that talk about the obligation of the company and the insurer to the company different from the cases that talk about the obligation between the insured and his own aged because the company is a purse a company cannot be the agent of the insured because that's the need on their part in the last and i learned that in a class case that specific request to get coverage they tried to do that they went to goodwill an american family to get coverage they do what mr necco says the standard of care would call for to review the application and to make sure that the entries are