for dorothy and the late monro under the insurance policy under the lease and insurance coverage in this case only cannot outline the players this case the underlying case began  landlord mackintosh who was insured by auto honors brought a suit against a repairman who ironically its name was workman so mackintosh sues workman and then work stove in the premises in pekin illinois was not working properly in two ways one the oven was not properly igniting and secondly one of the burners was not so mrs sheckler called the landlord  mr mackintosh who under the terms of the written lease was responsible for repairs he called mr workman the repairman to repair the stove and distort me came over quite frankly elderly stove in the meantime after he left mr shukla went up and turned apparently turned on a burner and explosion occurred auto nurse insurance insurers mackintosh and they refuse to provide either adem the t v no or it's insurance coverage nor a defense in other words an attorney for the shack lawyers when i tender that both of those two auto owners the underlying case has now been tried and a verdict was rendered by a jury here and tells what county and that verdict was not appealed so that portion of the case done at this point we still are dealing with the fact that whether i was owners insurance should have provided coverage and there was a demi and most importantly a defense for the shack lawyers which they would not do in their little but rather it is our positions they were coded coinsurance under the case law here in the state that primarily the dicks decision because mutual from the illinois supreme court and that decision has been cited and used in this rd district court's decision in our owners versus callahan i believe is how you pronounce it c a l l look for who's the responsibilities for ensuring or to meet their responsibilities for the property itself the real property including the improvements and who's responsible for the personal property and they look to again to the lease as a whole that's what the dick's court does did and that's what this court did an auto owners versus callahan secondly they looked in the lease to whether the rent was used to pay the insurance premiums they're looking for the intent of the parties and the dick's mutual case and subsequently the kellogg and case found based on the leases in those cases that the tenant had great had achieved the status of cole insured because of the landlord this least specifically your honor i place the responsibility for the property on the landlord and place the responsibility for the personal property on the five damage to personal property right correct normally and also runners policy also has a provision if you want to work for negligence that could be depends on the terms of the policy  it's paid for correct so what we're doing armory shifting their burden of the landlord to provide a renters policy to a town under these two decisions of writing and a cohen shared through the ambiguous that's the st analysis that must be done we're looking towards where the rent payments used to pay for the insurance and we're also looking as to the responsibilities as stated in the lease as to personal property and the the landlord used to cover all sorts of things such as fixing the road fixing the gutters all of those types of things that are normal in terms of providing a habitable promise  repairs are or improvements but that's not really true tenet is and the rep for the art or he's not paying for all of those things the landlord some provision i would think in the lease that says that tenet is going to pay a portion of the rent to the landlord and a portion of the rest to the insurance company the money belongs to the landlord once once the rent is hey that's his money so if if the landlord decided that he was going to put all that money together and say that and buy a jaguar does that make the  his property then as part of the lease then is that presume that that the rent is going to help pay for that i mean when we say that landlords will be paying for all ma'am works just the rent to pay for those expenses and secondly doesn't every insurance company know in illinois that when they write ten policy on rental property that due to long standing only for a long time isn't that right exactly just a slip exactly and that goes to the dick's decision and it goes to the i say this court's decision in two thousand love it in all owners versus it's well settled circuit court in this case applied a seems to apply the logic of the decision hacker bird or shelled insurance versus hacker which had to do with a personal injury case involving a liability policy liability issue had nothing to do with the circumstances that were faced in this case this this case involves fiber fire insurance so did dick's mutual and so did all the owners versus policy for purposes of that he's a guy with or only for purposes of fire insurance fire damage to the premises am i right that's correct that's what the dick's decision i mean it was specific to the facts of that case as was callahan and that's what i'm asking this court to correct in this case is if we look at the lease in this case specifically it indicates that the in week when we look at dicks we look at cal an we look at this lease it's clear that the fire insurance in this case should have provided coverage to the sheckler so it's co insurance it's just absolutely clear and was so are really making an exception just for the fire insurance coverage is just really what you're saying there logically there'd be no reason that if and when it is ten it could have a dog on the premise just fire insurance and we've done this well right correct your honor and we're base and we're not make it an exception really what we're doing is we're following the precedent of both the supreme court of illinois as well as thinking again for the reminder i'm sorry i didn't do that to begin with in this case the trial court followed the proper traditional rule of law that the determination of whether or not there's a duty to defend is found by comparing the underlyin subrogation context no and that's because they can't separate against their own insurer correct and under illinois law that tenant was a koan for purposes of fire damage under provide i will buy the fire insurance correct that the lease said the landlord mr macon tosh would provide fire insurance at least if not state that he will cover liability and in fact the leas indicates that the owner is not liable for damages caused by the tenants negligence and also says the tenant is the he will provide insurance to insure the tenant that's what fire insurance does that landlord said i'll buy the fire and the lease says that i will buy fire insurance and typically fire insurance as a st party policy where as the duty to defend falls under the liability of the dwelling landlord liability portion of the palm oil loss let me give you a scenario let's suppose that you have a landlord that says ok the building blew up but i don't want to turn in an insurance claim and the reason i don't want to insure and i've had another claim and if i turn this client in the insurance company's going to either raise my rates or cancel me because this will be my rd claim and so i don't want to turn to the insurance so mr tenet i'm going to sue you for damaging my building the tenant then goes to auto ners and says hey i've been sued for damages this building it's not a sever gazing case here and he provided fire insurance for this i want you to cover this loss under it he would be a cohen shared in the context if the insurance company attempted to segregate against that person and again this is the dick's decisions and the case for coming to d and somebody made a mistake i mean houses don't just blow up and so what if the verdict could come back and they passed on fifty percent or something what's the difference whether it's the insurance company making a claim against that tenant or a rd party the difference is again it's outside of the separation context in that  found in the policy in the record of this case that no coverage applies to property damage occupied or used by an insured if the son in this hypothetical is using occupying staying in or otherwise  caring for the property and he's the one that caused or his negligence caused the damage and that's what the rd party the coverage exceptional plot would apply to that hypothetical ok so anyway go ahead well let's get back to the facts of this case if i think the most important and distinguishing factors of this case one being that  court index was again i think it's very important to remember that that was a motion to dismiss that was at the pleading stage so any allegation of fact if properly pled was admitted or allowed or taken as truth now there's no discussion of what those well pled allegations were we don't know if the whole issue the dicta decision as far as the rent going towards or payments of rent going towards the policy if there was if that allegation was even well planned however in this case there are specific facts in the record undisputed that this policy was paid for entirely prior to receiving any rent from this particular tenant well before the premiums do under this situation is covered who pays his rent the day before the landlord's premium is due is covered and somebody who rents who rents the property two days after the landlord pays the fire insurance premium for the year is not covered with all due respect that's a silly argument and dick's doesn't make that distinction i' that landlord paid that policy with the rent from that tenant in this case that does not exist that is a distinguishing factor and i think outside of the the one side of the argument is that stand or cut someone's liability by a day there's only things like statutes of limitations that cut your ability to even file suit by a day but also the other side of the argument goes to justice mick mcdade argument or comments that the other side to that argument is that any payment towards anything is that attributed to the tenant as well i think if you're going to follow and if dick's is controlling that it's under the particular facts as the supreme court stated that case in that case they found the fact was that for this property the rent from that tenant went towards that policy in this case you don't have it that's why the argument just made again we're not trying to do anythin illinois that for a duty to defend which is what she claims are alleging under this declaration or dec action that goes to policy language and it goes to the pleadings of the underlying complaint now  because you know we talk now a lot about dicks and the application of these equitable principles but i didn't defend is not based on equity it's based on contract construction it's based on the plain language in insurance companies can provide exceptions or still don't have the ability to contract on in this case there is an exception and then sure his company does not lose that contract even if the word to be co insurance the co insurance now don't get to change the concept or the contract itself they don't become super insureds and receive more coverage than say the the landlord's son would receive if he was in the property and finally as i see the yellow light is now also just want to mention that there is no the allegations regarding a breach of duty to defend and allegations regarding violation of section one hundred and fifty five dollars of the insurance code i think just part of that goes to that there is a bona fide defense there was a bona fide defense to this case and that's even clearer now that some regret judgment was granted by a district court below i think that at least shows that you may please the court i apologize i created this mess i am now going to try to explain it st of all mr banker is incorrect about what the record is in this case about the payment of the rental if you go to the records see th eighty three dollars eighty four cents you'll find that the landlord at his back in time at his deposition said that the lease required him to pay the fire insurance and testified that for his i think it was eighteen rental properties it collects the just want to say is that this mutual changed the law about whether or not naming the renter in the policy changes things the since dec's renters are covered for damage to the property it's not a general liability policy but it's for damage to the property so that is well settled the real question i think is how does this come up in a contribution contest because here is what happened in this case mr workman was sued for one hundred and fifty thousand dollars on his one hundred thousand dollars liability policy and as we took the depositions of the parties it became apparent that after mr workman left d there was a dispute as to whether there was a smell of gas when he left there's no accounting for what mr sheckler did during much of that period the seculars did testify that for a and i'm going to generalize about two hours the smell of gas got stronger stronger they then took the preventative a sprain for bridges around the house down and then just to make sure that everything was ok mr shekel or let the stow that's how the it was an explosion it was a fire of some ferocity in any event that's what happened when i reviewed that it appeared to me that the tenet was either entirely responsible for the fire or alternatively seventy to ninety percent responsible so here's what happened we were defending the case we proposed in the auto on hers have a damage reduction or that it be filed as a contribution d action  attempting to do is pass through one hundred percent liability to a party who at most was twenty or two thousand five hundred and ten percent whatever it would be at fault if we tried the case mr workman it was  however the shufflers were very able a defendant by mr wertz and and candidly there's nothing at all that i can see in any of the cases that suggest that the same result doesn't occur in a rd party contribution case the reason is it's not a claim for some other injury it's still a claim for injury to the house the premium that was charged by art on hers was based on the value of the house that's the insured risk there is no open ended liability as there might be if it were treated as a personal injury because somebody is dog that the mailman and justice holdridge your earlier questions with all due respect reminded me very much  that exclusion that's in the auto owner's policy it's also in renters policy is if that exclusions enforceable and in a rental renter can't insure for damage to  really appreciate everybody trying this new experience and so in conclusion this matter will be taken under advisement and a written disposition shall issue at this time