or this court is presented with thing named operating or exclusion endorsement that endorsement stated that this indorsement in the words that it's true think evidence is not necessary to tell you what the document was intended to me terms and that can be done by the insurance company itself and i believe the section of the policy in this tent and it can be changed by indorsement and that's exactly the procedure that was  d in this case and although there are a lot of pieces in illinois that parent addressed these exclusion nursemaids there or two that i think are worth looking at in the other case i'd like to discuss just briefly is saying irene versus smith and that's the first district case from two thousand and three in that case the appellate court reversed the trial court and ruled in they operated solution indorsement violence public policy and number two approach with his name driver exclusion indorsement here or there is that any contention at all that the one procedure was used i submit that there was desire to hit the open pages and put the other ones in and this record is a lot of lines so assuming that we look outside the four corners of the refuting if you find this an immunity and you find that it's necessary to work outside the language of the contracted south then you would determine whether there is in dispute didn't have the authority to make those decisions and she didn't make any promises oh did the did the exclusion apply to both your policy and to the umbrella that that was why i wanted to separate the writer because no coverage in the fact he was not to exclude he was not a household driver at the time and what we pointed out to the court to all was stay at there was no intent for him to fast concerning that but i just want to briefly say on the issue of me having peterson's purchase of other insurance he did buy a policy from state farm but he's not the main bitch or her spouse unnamed insured had to show his insure that matthew was not to be living in the house and his own insurance so that he could be excluded he knew he had to do all that in the editorship mr peters if you read his deposition testimony he was a very persecutor guy he was a banker he did everything in a timely way and one of the nature of all this was ready to go so that when the fifteenth came around he could meet all the requirements regarding your argument about intent to what do we look to for instance should we just be looking at initially the policy itself and the way to the exclusion which says quote this applies to your current policy and will apply to any subsequent renewal which by its own terms means it applies to the current they have to move it forward that is including second factor the facts surrounding the execution now in the end this is if we're looking at this interview exclusion indorsement obviously the facts surrounding is the execution fifteenth because that was the end of the policy period nothing changed between that time in the end of the policy period in fact the same day that mr peterson and jim like signed that handwritten memo february eleventh of the about march fifteenth should be given its intended effect which is march fifteenth that's what both parties intended when they first created it i do want to address the umbrella policy just briefly here as i said there's only one argument being made on the umbrella policy and that is was we have your presiden bit overseas do you have to establish your living here at the time of an accident for the coverage to apply your i think you have to give it its concepts definition which is is one of the places you consider a residence in matthew's case it clearly was that's why i believe the with respect to the metropolitan policy the term sure it's defined in that policy is you or a relative residing in your household using the present tense