were friends they lived on the same block in the same town the lawsuit basically alleged that robert of alyssa fender the parents of cameron affirmatively offered and pushed they did this even though they had some general knowledge that cameron had some prior shall we say sexual indiscretions in fact they were on notice if you will cameron had on at least two occasions that we can tell done some improprieties to other children the first time that cameron babysat sinew for a sexual molestation took place at the time cameron was sixteen years old and sydney was seven years old of cameron but for their negligence and their statements or from his statements to the corporates saying hey our kids a nice kid let him babysit for intentionally withholding the other information oh by the way he's already had a problem incidence of sexual impropriet will not cover any actions under a violation of any criminal law for which any insured is convicted the criminal justice system in other words people are treated differently for the same incident if someone is a minor first someone is the age of majority the policy says violation of any criminal corrupt justice certainly and i think one one alternative reading of that would be a violation of any criminal law well the juvenile detention is not a violation of the criminal law so i think the way the people or the state has treated juveniles versus adults in the past would make that review at least open to interpretation and as an aside even an every day basis if you go ahead and fill out a one page application for and then i buy this fallacy in indiana fifteen thirty and you drive under in the state of illinois you automatically have to conform to the state of illinois which is twenty four it so even if you bought an insurance policy with limits of fifteen thirty different state when you come to state of illinois you have to abide by the state of illinois and its rules regarding minimum coverage so i would argue that the same point along those lines with you now is here under illinois law well except if that would be one time i lived in and juvenile to the case and all of those it's a violation of criminal law and i would argue respectfully that the state of illinois always as most states frankly have always treated a minor adjudication versus an adult conviction over criminal law very different this is not a case about a single line in a twenty six page policy this is about a twenty six patient surance policy with multiple exclusions all of likeable to the conduct of mr founder the sexual molestation funder what i mean by that justices is what we first need to look at and interpret in this insurance policy and whether there is coverage it's a one considered a contract which it is a case on always clear insurance policies or contract between policyholders and the insurance company in order to interpret that policy we have to look at what the intent of the parties was it is absolutely absurd to think that either the policyholder defenders in this case or american family insurance insurer intended for this policy to cover sexual misconduct of cameron founder if you buy a home or as insurance if there's a hole in  roof and water comes in if someone comes over and swims in your pool and things are had on your diving board if your dog bites the mailman that is why you have homeowner's insurance for liability issues and for property damage if you do not have homeowne homeowners insurance to indemnify you against criminal conduct going down to five going to criminal conduct of your children or anyone else was engaging in intentional conduct we look at the case law and i'm not just saying this as as myself to the court if we look at state farm versus waters which is a case of sexual abuse the court and i'm going what i'm saying to the justices now said homeowners coverage for criminal sexual abuse of children outside the contemplation of the parties to the insurance contract indeed the average person is persian person purchasing homeowner's insurance would cringe at the very suggestion that the person was paying for such coverage and certainly would not want to share that type of risk with other homeowners policies it goes without saying the intent of the parties in this case was never to engage into a contract where there would be a duty to in them and that if i were duty to defend on the not covered under insurance policies for live billet under negligence and i'm specifically referring in one instance of the westfield vs comp munity case where it says under this rule if a person sexual abuse is a minor the court will find as a matter of law that the abuser intended to injure his or her victim as a matter of law and they're citing the waters case which of the case i just read before regarding the overall tension of how if we go back to the actual policy language itself there are numerous exclusions throughout the policy that will will more clarify why this isn't covered and to differentiate it from your rustling examples conduct or corporal punishment or physical or mental abuse resulting bodily injury or property damage is excluded specifically the sexual abuse and i don't understand how could be any more equivocal to say that to your honor people retailer was a very insular ruling that considered that that the mission of conviction in a case involving a juvenile adjudication the court and that was in determining whether or and they've already had a felony conviction would have juvenile adjudication counts in that new statute to basically be a strike against them and determining what degree of felony they would be charged with under the statute that has the trial court ordered in this case that is a very very insular and nuanced definition of the word conviction what are you this is under contract law under contract interpretation we are not to give pled guilty for the crime and service seven year sentence for any person that i will walk into that parking lot right now and say is that what that man convicted they would say absolutely he was he's in jail he pled guilty it's a conviction a the most important point to make about that is that is one singular exclusion policy even if this court says you know what household right it's not a violation of law then counsel still has to say why it's not excluded under the specific exclusion for abuse why it's that which was expected her tender from the standpoint to ensure a gap we have an intentional act by cameron founder specifically included under sort of exclusion of the policy council made no point  group to discern why the court to rule on that age from the from the record or from your knowledge of the case from the record the way i was reading it looked like the trial court had a very long and this is all surmising conjecture because i was not there it looked like the judge in the trial court had a very good handle of criminal law in juvenile law i don't know its history i don't know where he came from but you know people t liability policy under any unsure whether it's my company american family state farm i'll say whether in order for a liability policy to trigger coverage there has to be an occurrence and occurrence as defined in almost every policy  the big insurers a dying that i name as an accident reports who have gone over this over and over and over again to determine what's an accident the case of westfield which is which is very very similar to the case  to the current case that are basically stated that it's no accident to engage in sexual molestation and therefore no occurrence took place if nor kerns takes place there's no sugar of coverage point i just want to again reiterate that under no circumstances did either american family or the standards ever engage in this contract with the intent of covering sexual molestation  any attempt by the other side to say that while this is not intentional conduct it's negligent conduct of the parents for letting the kid for letting the child oh there is simply an attempt to trigger coverage and the west nothing more than intentional conduct criminal conduct and excluding conduct specifically under the abuse provision and therefore i think the trial court must be a powerful and this appeal must be not you  in whether or not the injury is what you intended the injury and abuse exclude it the argument though that in the example you give it is much different in that there is consensual sexual conduct therefore the abuse and sexual molestation  exclusion of the policy would not come into play again i don't know if it would be covered under the homeowners policy under the intentional conduct provision i doubt it would be these issues that were brought up today by counsel and myself were fully briefed the judge should judge leonard only felt comfortable enough to make a decision on the one point other points that counsel brought up he intentionally d not make a decision let me be clear he didn't find in my favor or in the other person's favor you decided that the only decision that you try to make would be the one that we're here for today that being said  if i just may simply address everything prepared so i don't need to go into this very far but counsel kind of open the door for me you refer to the state farm you waters case and the problem there from occasions and that's where this whole idea of intentional technically also brought up that illinois law is generally stands for the proposition that insurance company is under no duty to defend or i'm going to find it sure we subtly uses of mine and that's basically what the there is a difference whether there is an intent to commit a sexual act versus an intent that that sexual act would cause an injury when it's a minor doing and these are interesting cases that the