now you do it in the greed that all american ruffing did sign this oh yes yes and how would you first address the cases that say that basically when you sign a contract you can't claim that there were misread representations about that contract when those those claimed misrepresentations are actually in the treatment itself sure i think in a couple of ways first i think you have to look at it in the context not actually part of the bridge that there is a case that they're excited from a different district it was federal cases and it was again they had different language police language and cited discussed in the case itself is different there's arbitration in here and the cases that say that someone who signed something is assumed we presume rather that they fret now how do you get around the pieces that say that when you sign you presumed to have read it and you can't later claim a misrepresentation out arbitration when infective signed something that said that disputes arising regarding the program are so get arbitration change any coverage that all americans get forget about the choice of all right now just tell me how arbitration takes away or materially alters your coverage und is something they would have the other you know that it already decided that he and the motion to dismiss it already decided that they did not so i don't think that issue was really before which he didn't read it but he signed it but that doesn't help you with any of the cases that say it when you're claiming a misrepresentation has been eighty feel that you can't sign a document that has the facts in it and then claim later that i didn't read it and so those misrepresentations misled me even though it says in the face of it that the parties are septics arbitration  supposed to be some summary judgment what was this to your understanding you you meant the other side participated so you tell me but it was a summary proceeding proceed what is that well if you look at the us if you look at that they may have been the sort of things that really would have been subject to arbitration anyway but what if you were required direct that that's right ok he says he said ultimately that there was no question of fact that you were required arbitrate because the word summary judgment for but then we get to the problem that i think justice mcbride and i are both happy in rolling out let's take the eat what i think is the easy purse he says in conclusion with respect to the zero three and four contracts now remember we've got two levels of standard of review right imbedded in the abuse of discretion standard i'm whether or not you are doing what you can compel arbitration under three o if you argue both sides here depositions you argued about what the testimony of various witnesses meant ok so if we say up here well you know it looks like what he did was he morphed the summary judgment proceeding into a bench all over again only this time he's going to make findings based on the evidence rather than findings based down motion for summary judgment is there anything new that will come in ever what your statute in the front of your brief that the rule requires you to do so you use the language of the statute said if your own spin on it because you keep saying materially alters the policy which you've missed and you've left out a word that's in the city actually my opinion but i thought it said that you know forty one forty three seventeen a requires that you get advance notice all the way where the insured young for apple easer at the american insurance company essentially this case boils down to to two key questions one did the parties agree to arbitrate and two should court in or spat agreements and the trial court correctly answered both questions yes there are four policy years at issue or different program agreements the first two years those agreements were signed by all american and in the context of some of the procedural discussion that we've been having this morning the first two years where the agreements were signed those were al nielsen case has departed dispositive on this point that case says that when you sign a written agreement and you have the opportunity to read that agreement you can't come back later and say that there was  there's fourteen accounts that all american the service essentially there's two particular accounts they deal with the merits of the parties disputes which are claims handling judge flint deferred ruling on those two particular accounts and sent those to arbitration everything else before the court was essentially an attack on the arbitration provision and that is what i believe this appellate court is deciding here today blog why can we assume that that after did some way your coverage responsibility the answer to that question is no because he separated remits do not address coverage there's no insuring it  that if you signed it you're bound by the language from period with respect to renewable policy seems to leave a crack open in the door for the insured i get that they're under no they're under less of an obligation to scrutinize the policy than they were with the original policy would you agree that that's at least what perry said sets right in limited circumstances ok one of the reasons why the program agreements are different here before he sat now there's a disputed question not a flaw but a fact as to when he signed it isn't there as we see tony was he told that these agreements site agreements whatever mirrored the original passes and he said he signed that with the understanding that there were no substantive changes whatsoever that's just that's his testimony testimony of well this is the question what he thought he was saying he thought he was signing an agreement he testified that mirrored the original ok the testimony wasn't  but even if we have more than we need to overcome summary judge well the judge had to decide didn't believe what's his name platelet he didn't believe he didn't have to decide that because he had to essentially decide that it didn't matter even if we took there isn't one that precisely addresses this issue of what is the nature of these agreements that are at their core let me know that but they're not renewing policies if you look at the kid they do find the people the way we know will policy with buying they bind people in a way that a contract was right and they bite people retroactively don't think it depends when you and she certainly did in this case and there was nothing about arbitration and lead original to a thousand and one and two thousand and two contracts but arbitration was there nothing in the policy right nothing in the policies about arbitration nothing in the policies about new york being the choice of law correct since it will not be able law that says you can't originally agreed to it mirrors the original policy are you bound to read it correctly and judge glenda that's what he decided he decided that you can't possibly make a disputed question of fact out of this issue as to whether or not  even though it says this now i didn't read it because i have a line on somebody else reading it for me and telling me what it's that way i mean if we're really allowing that to happen then there's going to be a lot of concrete where you can say well you know what i did read it and so i don't know what the judge did for two thousand three thousand four don't know how he got there i'm trying to find out if this was an trial and that you both of you agreed to proceed to bench trial were because it certainly isn't a summary judgment proceed because the judge made credibility decisions and it and from what judge hill suggesting he also did that in the first part of this proceeding he made  nothing like that is included and we've got to make a policy decision here with respect to imposing arbitration i'm uninsured who at the time he entered into the original policy assumed that there was no arbitration clause a period of time passes through which he is covered quote unquote it's a peculiar policy in the sense that there are adjustments that are made at the end of the policy period not uncommon among big commercial companies and big commercial insurers with respect to this kind of insurance which in this case was workman's comp and there are all kinds of battles and feuds that go on after the policy periods and with respect to how much the premium should be and what the your grievance were with respect to those premiums and a lot of retired judges make a lot of money ar special it just mirrors the original policy and relying on that having signed the original policy and knowing what that was nothing about arbitration nothing about new york law he scribbles his signature on it and lo and behold he public policy have to decide whether this is more like theory situation or it's unique because you don't have a case that says with respect to these side agreements that are signed after the policy has been executed three different cases ok although there is not in illinois case on point we cited in our brave to three different cases that you were going to go outside of illinois law make sure that these cases are may not be binding but they are persuasive and they do address the facts before this our illinois residence yeah i know what you were talking about new york law you mean you could have you could have probably gotten no reason to get it over to federal court but you i guess that's debatable as well even though you're relying on these three cases f first first two years rights how they help you with this never signing the last two years well the last two years are the years where we actually made it to something that was very akin to a bench trial of you mention we presented witnesses there was evidence that was presented and the court made a back determination that although all american had not signed these agreements the agreements were presented at the beginning of the policy year the parties operated under the agreements for years how do they this other thing called a separate agreement how can you now how can you use this case to support your position that they agreed to them because they say they didn't sign now i don't want to and i can understand saying if i sign something i just read it and if it's right above my signature it's kind of silly of me to suggest i didn't understand there but on the other hand if i read mr stein and i used to sign it and i just don't and that policy period is already gone by two thousand and three it's gone why should i be bound by the separate agreement i never signed that one of the issues that judge flynn determined in the hearing at the hearing that is based on the testimony one of the questions he considered reza there i defended of not did they ever refused to sign or was it something that had simply gotten put off and put off and put off while our american was trying to use that as leverage for other issues and that was  there's a case that we presented in our brief that had to do with a situation where arbitration was compelled after this type of perceiving the court reviewed it under an abuse of discretion standard i believe both sides cited to abuse of discretion standard with respect to those two insurer occurrences had already taken place which were insurable and insured occurrences under the policies for two thousand and one and two thousand and two they've already happened and now you're saying resolutions of disputes with respect to those things that have already happened will be governed by arbitration rather than by the normal procedures in a court of law i guess i think he says something i have two responses to ok one is a we're ready for every one is a statute as opposed to a case which is the illinois arbitration act which says you can agree to arbitrate not only future experience but also existing disputes ok so it wouldn't matter if that happened in the past ok so you appeal to the arbitration act or that that's a good point and what your second answer the second answer has to do with it almost demonstrates the nature of the agreement the occurrences that you're talking about the claims that you're talking about those would all be paid out in exactly as the policies provided these separate agreements don't have anything to do with that the types of things that are addressed in the separate agreements are things like collateral how to spot result disputes about payment those types of