canons of statutory interpretation and illinois overall scheme of compensating persons in my state bodies both favor the interpretation of plaintiff favors here today that the statute does apply to this case and specifically to the defendant but the three which are potentially germane to this case are an exception for the state of illinois an exception for state employees indemnified by the state of illinois pursuant to the state and only indemnification act and then claims filed against them arising out of their actions estate officers are to be paid however the statute specifically exacts in the case arising from an automobile accident of all of your arguments quire  representative did if you look at it and john what is for representative a representative was the acting manager of the central management department of the state of illinois if you look how is it determined that he was her representative from determination made that determination is not legally made in the record but in that instance your honor i think it's kind of the dog that didn't bark if the state was just acting on its own at this point i would think comes from would have said something that would be potentially an argument to be made if you were seeking to bind actually i'm not sure that you could make that argument there's nothing on the record that  about forty five thousand dollars of interest that would be outstanding if the quote were defined for fishnets today and our complaint is not the c m s entered into the agreement the complaint is that the settlement was not paid in accordance with the statu correct but we did not agree that to waive our rights under twenty one you read that the state would pay us but we did not agree thereby to waive all rights in the twenty three one now turning to my second point whe period and the employee and tried by the state unless they intended for some employees not to be covered by the exemption to section twenty three zero one and that's exactly the case we have here today with the state employee indemnification aqua legislat exceptions in section twenty three zero one for the state of illinois and state agencies would apply here the circuit court correctly concluded that those exceptions apply because and it also specifically stated that lori and her husband's estate would not be obligated to pay and i think i think it's important this is consistent with section fo unqualified release of any right of back trend against the state employee and the provision goes on to state basically if there's no settlement the state has to defend in hold harmless the employee against any tort claim so what this provision clearly invasions it is as long as the vehicle accidents in the course of the state employees employment that employee is not going to pay now under their interpretation of the statute you have you have a situation where the employee can be forced to pay if the state has more than thirty days like they're saying in that situation the outlook asian somehow shifts back to the employee that  violence to this civil administrator code provision and you know and we think if you construe the provisions together that's that the legislature could not possibly time that this civil s was a subtle playing it down their core i suppose you could say but again the settlement agreement rioli didn't give her any obligations even specifically nor her has neither she nor her husband's estate would have to pay and i know there is as counsel pointed out there is in section twenty three  us and this may take a little while to explain but under the state employee i done indemnification act the state does not have an obligation to indemnify if the conduct as potentially makes a difference for this reason if this legislature did not want the specific state employee identification act exemption there there could be an argument made in the case of a settling it in the case of a settlement that the state should not have been involved in the first place this was willful and wanton on top so the state shouldn't have been involved this state of illinois exception and the money three zero one should not apply we think we agree that the plain language of the statute does dictate a result here but we think the results the opposite one that the exceptions to twenty three zero one for the state of illinois and its agencies would clearly apply here when the settlement agreement is really between is baltar and the state or one of the state's agencies sovereign immunity would apply because the judgment would be one that would be founded upon a contract with the state of illinois so under section eight of the court of claims act sovereign immunity w judgment in our view but we don't think you need to get to that because the statute we believe the statute in the first place doesn't apply here because the fs the state of illinois goes to trial carefully set forth the state would have to indemnify at least up to two million dollars but then if there was a settlement and the state did not pay within thirty days then somehow even though the individual defendant doesn't control the settlement agreement then they're on the hook really that i think that some absurd resolve that should back and the statutory scheme should not be interpreted that way it's a basic rule of statutory construction the statute should be interpreted so they would be on the first being that the explanation and counsel just proffered for why the legislature failed to carve out an additional exception for auto liability cases not persuasive for these act reason that the legislature did need to  many ways we could have avoided being here today if the legislature had simply specified that the states indemnities were universally example from the statute we wouldn't be here today if the office of central management