shoes of the under insured motors if the under insured motorist doesn't pay we don't and we only pay to the extent that the under insured motorist would pay based upon certain legal principles bound in their state aside and i don't expect any lay person to be able to even spot these honestly i don't i don't see how the few lawyers there may even be a few lawyers who don't spot shit and their statement instructs us that the first thing we need to do is identify what the issue is and characterize the issue whether it's a adjusting a moment ago he sees the insurance contract that's attached to the complaint for declaratory judgment that we brought or i'm going to claim that you and says hey this is a suit on a kind of policy we have to interpret the is i mean we do have a contractual relation with our insured but our liability to our insured is based on a tort principle because we step in the shoes of the under insured motorists in calculating determining fault in calculating damages nor would say logically is that because tort law controls the determination of faults which is part of the arbitration process so of the state and second should determine whether illinois or florida law applies to the damages that can be recovered now under the statement second there is a states then on up here there was nothing that you can say is fortuitous about the injury taking place and for richard henry was a long time winter resident who owned and kept a trailer on a lot in florida the year round he maintained afford a bank account he would pay the bills from florida when he was wintry each year and he has a still adult son david one of the parties in the case  argument if you could say that the exit happens in georgia at this point to go to sleep they're passing through georgia and they have no connection to george here he's a part time steering wheel she's driving he's in the passengers when the accident take place in florida after they've been living there so your argument your earlier made was you're stepping into her you can have more than one residence although you can only have one down they have a residence in illinois they have a residence in florida the accident happened while they were staying at the residence and floor is that a factor you have to look at absolutely it's one of the five but it is not as important according to stick as the place of the accident is a presumption we start with a presumption that the law mind here that the parties who would  favor of illinois law because only one of the kids lives in illinois and the other one was in florida and the third one lives in another state another happens in georgia on the way to florida where you see me well how does that help well you know we have a car trip started and ended in florida because that's where they've been living for three months so it's not quite the same situation when that's a lot of the place of the accident here florida applies to determine whether insured is legally entitled to recover benefits to go back to the question the justice turner maybe begin your argument with when it comes to how do  the insurance contract limits coverage to damages that the insured would have been able to recover from the f or motorist therefore defendants cannot obtain non economic damages from country mutual because they couldn't get those damages from georgia and read the f off motorist or underinsured motors benefits where the court held that the law other than the place of the accident applied in one of those cases was there a policy interpretation in the fry case from this court several years ago there was an owned vehicle exclusion policy that would have precluded recovery that policy w because the trial court was following the law which says otherwise the trial the top court followed fry shall costello and allen all those cases are as i mentioned just like this one if a well let me let me just say this if it's just that when there is a dispute over choice of law associated with a claim for uninsured or and richard morris the church coverages contract choice of law principles apply that's how those four cases i mentioned can be summarized so that's why judge webber did what he did because the follow that law if we were to apply tort principles then the result would still be the same the principle case that the insurance company relies on here is the town's case for michigan housing first of all was not an uninsured or underinsured it was sold in michigan used in michigan by michigan residents but john deere has its corporate headquarters which cover the kind of somewhere so they filed suit their and certainly they apply toward principles and they said the place of injury is  even if that's presumptive it can be overcome in the context of this discussion murphy against man cari etc case is also important because going through these five factors that in michigan the travel there every weekend had an accident there then there was a dispute about whether michigan or illinois law would govern his remedies in that his action in michigan even though he traveled there every weekend for twenty seven years it was still fortuitous that the accident took place there it was not fortuitous that he was there but all things considered given that he the insurance company is really stepping into the shoes of the under insured motorist or jetta is should be no more liable should follow why weren't they why are they persuasive well i don't have this tendency in your great weight back that we have some authority in this state to the contrary and i understand that can be changed but it does seem significant to me stories was made here when these policies were purchased and renewed and renewed renewed and finally that the catchall factor any other consideration  terms of policy and which state cares about whether its policies are in force nobody from florida has anything to do with the minister that the henrys are part time residents they're going to say that we think the focus should be on part time not resident follow the law including as set forth by this fork in the fry case if he was mistaken and should have applied for principles we think that even after those  the four principle cases we rely on say those cases are the most like this case that's with us cases but recognizing that all these cases are fact intensi choice of contract analysis to interpret policy exclusions or limitations that define the coverage in our case they're not being asked the policy because the issues to be resolved often damages are torts issues i don't like the four cases i know problem right no problem with palin and the other cases because they are pay damages that the insured is legally entitled to recover that doesn't tell us what damages he's entitled to recover if there is an exclusion exclusion will tell us whether we pay or not there is no  here she is purchasing or is that enough i think it's enough that he or she or in this case maybe the two of them under different policies  the the terms of the policy but because you can travel all over the country and you can get into accidents in different locations and you can live parts of the year in multiple  this one phrase that we're talking about is the difference between four hundred thousand dollars and coverage were essentially zero because these children were dependent upon rightly him for his support it is