take each case by the facts on a case by case basis and in this case there are some questions of fact regarding whether mr levy was a traveling employee here at the time of his accident on june i was in that traveling boy ok judge joseph we he is employed by admiral mechanical services ammo mechanical services is a sister company of admiral heating and ventilation on june sixteenth the me to project for me at the a on center joseph leask he said yes now there's a question according to mr b he whether he knew that it was a bank or not but according to john guerin they could not access the premises until eight at the other issue with the facts is so was it going down there well to just a first question the other issue is whether mr b he was actually on his way to be a on center and that's all borne out by the ti say he was going to get there at six am however the exit credit five fifty he would never have made it by six in the morning downtown chicago it doesn't make sense but it doesn't matter because the commission here's traveling employee and that's the end of it saying let's give your argument is full or fair what if he was stopping by the office first with that i mean him be a traveling employee if he goes up to chicago i don't see what you're what you're trying to stand here i would argue that's a commute th because i don't think he's perpetually a traveling employee if he were leaving his house and asking go to go to the office and hillside illinois and then go chicago that means he can't be a traveling according to you why would it would depend on the fence and in th whereby you have an employee who is not and not a familiar territory staying in a motel traveling salesmen those types of people they go out for dinner or a movie and i get into a car accident in unfamiliar territory and truly a travel employee and i'm not arguing that the traveling plate actually should not exist i think a fills it does fill the gap if someone is put in a situation where they're in unfamiliar territory and they go out and make a wrong turn down a rod straight to get into a car the initial analysis no knee jerk reaction here we've decided case after case that people in exactly this guy's situation are traveling in police but just why can't they go through the course of employment and arising out of analysis first before we get to foreseeable assessment she just says joseph we as a traveling employee was in the full course in furtherance of his employment that's the end of because he was on his way to meet with somebody about a job for the company you work for which we would dispute and i for coffee and so if that were the case then my question is was there any of the is from anybody that there was any plan for the claimant to stop by the office before he would see the gear other than the timing no but it's testifying he had a meeting set up with him so it's some point according to the undisputed evidence he was meeting with karen in downtown chicago correct correct but not at six in the morning the only person saying six in the morning is joseph we again it is just  he's well aware of the traffic and it just doesn't make it just doesn't add up but the real issue is that they'd miss application the traveling employee doctrine and there's no assessment or analysis regarding the also period between his home and in his office they have no k but between his home and a on center i mean what if it was just a complete detour on that i mean it was say his plan was to get down to a on center because right next door is a toy store that he's going to buy a toy for is son before he started work even though that might have been his design he was traveling from home on the route that would have taken him to the day on center at the time of the accident happened regardless of what  and the reason i say that is mr carer said he can't to the site to work say between five and five thirty he then called mr leahy at five thirty eight according to the telephone record and mr leahy said i man my way the accident happened they believe about ten miles from this house so if he was ten miles from his house at five thirty eight and it takes an hour an hour and fifteen minutes to get there he was a good thirty six in the morning maybe it's more like quarter to seven or something like that as far as it being the business of the bank mr krueger testified that mr leahy had several of his own clients including some of which were banks and mr leahy said normally when i i try to get there before the bank opens which would mean before eight o'clock or so i think he was going to get there sometime between quarter to seven and seven when he normally does there was no testimony that carolyn told him that she couldn't get direct route regardless of what was going to happen once he got there is there any evidence that this route that he was on would have taken him someplace else though the only thing was that if your office was also on the way although he would have to go a couple miles off to the back and it just happened to be that was the same route for that particular job if it was going to a different dad it might not have taken a by the office but on this particular day this particular balcony took up the same way it would go either way  not against the manifest weight of the evidence and it should be for the trust the band issue briefly and the reason that that was raised at arbitration hearing some of the documents that were submitted had a specimen of band with no indication that the pay of the band was filed that he was authorized to do so those cases are out the door there's the first chicago case where the principal consulted actually cited but he didn't put down his title here or the principle inside sign it in his own name he signed it in the name of the president whose name i get the coverage now right mr krueger you saw in the story i mean you couldn't tell from the face of the bond well you would never tell from the face of the band if someone just science whoever the where everyone knows it everyone so well that they know each other signature apparently and when when he when mr lee he saw that the second surety bond wasn't signed by decree he questioned it and proceed to first calio we produced affidavits that situation and that's exactly what happened here and i now use to cry sour grapes but they had the opportunity to challenge affidavits if they didn't believe them and they did not do that so at this point the employer employee respectfully request that