interplay between the illinois insurance co the demise of fremont casualty insurance and the illinois insurance guarantee fund case the replies to these cases mr gibson had worked for an employer who was insured by the fremont casualty company and filed t entered in the court of california the state of california staying proceedings due to the conservatorship freemont casualty company not the liquidation just the conservatorship so the staying all proceeding before proceedings in general with the exception of appeals to the california workers compensation board something would be akin to the old i worker's compensation commission appeals from an arbitrator's decision the petitioners counsel on the defense counsel for that specifically the question is the industrial commission chairman believed at that we're going california could not apply to a petitioner in the state of illinois unless the petitioner had contacts with the state of california but the illinois statutes in the little illinois legislature has control over the insurance companies in the operation of insurance and it's section two one five i'll see as to twenty one point one through ten they give full faith and credit and they apply those conservation orders and i don't care three seven point seven the industrial of the illinois and surest guarantee fund is obligated to evaluate these claims so when situations such as this where the insurance company is bankrupt the investigate the claims and they're also given certain powers and these powers when you see them at five thirty seven point seven allows them to set aside if they are not bound by any settlement release compromise waiver or final judgment the legislature has seen fit to add all of those criteria into the decision not just final judgments not just final conclusions but any settlement willy's compromise for a waiver but we wouldn't believe that the initial wave of our failure to bring up the state of california or the waiver of a right to an independent medical examination the waiver of a right to have the man on the essential issue the sidetone are all testing that the expert indicated should be reviewed by doctor wrote those waivers made decisions made by the free my cash the company are not binding on me on my insurance guaranty fund in the guarantee find should have had the opportunity to investigate those retain experts that in fact my office this case goes back a long long time my office after the entry the liquidation order in the original stay entered their parents in december three two thousand claims you were yes and which decision you feeling and not tell a judge how to rule judge gardner did find that the bankruptcy court vacated the decision but he did not fight he found that the commission did not have authority because the state had been in effect nullify an order of banks the court does not have the authority to tell the circuit court judge whether they need to hear a certain case or decide certain issues and a judge will be within his decision as to whether that decision was void in of itself or no answer no that they remain in effect there because there is no reason for a judge to give credence or encourage people to violate orders in the hope violate state orders in the hope they might be something vacated at some future date was to refer the provisions of the state statute i'd be obligating the only insurance guarantee find to investigate these claims and their rights if we were a stranger to this case when it already started before the liquidation when it was entered their right in the duty of a guarantee fund to investigate  has still never reached the issue of section five three seven point seven only applies to final judgments as applies to other agreements waivers compromise or settlements that still has not and rates and that's something that  and there is no reason to follow it as a rule there is no direction from the seventh circuit to find it is the problem making an argument i think sort of a public policy argument and it has something to the feel that you don't want to encourage this kind of behavior but in the if the case law doesn't lifting the state that's what the cases but that only allows the petitioner to prosecute a claim against people other than williams on that order only apply to williams on ngs the industrial commission the guarantee fund is not party to those proceedings are subject to that order the provisions of the guarantee fund there would allow the guarantee fund to do the investigation we were a stranger to this case as it started we tried to unto the damage to that immediately within fourteen days of our substitution of a council by asking for this relief the average i believe the only reason he would be able to vacate that is if there was a default and someone didn't show up  surgeons strike that there were two claims in this case one involved sure case the other involved a total permanent disability based upon brain damage so this is a serious case  to justice hoffman's question regarding the first or second commission decision or the first or second circuit court judgement i think through a counsel wish to attack the of the bankruptcy state the proper procedure would have been to appeal the decision the bankruptcy court and whether the fund was technically a party or not i can tell you mr cahill was present at the hearing when the bankruptcy stay or no appeal was ever filed from the decision the bankruptcy court to attack it in the circuit court of cook county really a collateral attack on the lifting or the i say the enormity of the state  going to the merits of the appeal if in fact we're talking about the second commission the session we're not operating in a vacuum when it comes to the question of minimum three i think there's some confusion between the conservation order of june fourth of zero three and the actual liquidation order which was entered on july second of zero three that's what triggered the guarantee fun stepping into the shoes of free not casualty and that's what triggered the one hundred twenty day automatic stay by the department cerberus and in fact one of them once those about the merits of the second decision what is the city what is the circumstance of the original decision in my view your honor the the judge in the judgment of judge gardner can review the first decision of the commission of was erroneous as a matter of law because he found that the decision that the original commission decision was void because it we've got a case pending before the illinois industrial commission post conserve ship order ok subsequent to their filing for bankruptcy correct me if my dates are i'm jean marie the eighteenth twenty two five the illinois industrial commission issues its decision its first decision on december the twenty or twenty will sit next to bankruptcy court circuits we understand the seven circuit hasn't spoken so loudly adapted here in the absence of authority because no one ever appealed the warner a knowing the stay if it's a if we agree with you then we'll i think the the court in its discretion could address the merits i i hear what your honor suggesting that it has to be sent back to the circuit court to now address the merits  with with the limited amount of time i have a just want to address two things the effect of the empty suit injunction which is the conservation order and also counsel raised by thirty seven point seven insurance co  and certainly guides was a case where there was actually no defense presented it was a case where the defendant withdrew the defendant's counsel with  so five three seven point seven is the commission stated in its decision was never triggered in this case in the the from decided no cases directly on point only that five hundred some point seven was triggered in this case you  not in that order but in the state of california the state of illinois the illinois statute to require them to enforce these order so there's equal enforcement across the states in my residence as opposed to other residents that is triggered by the state statute is not insurance company under mcmahon versus industrial commission penalties against the insure and the statute that allows the naming of the ensure the insured is still allowed to be a direct  time they could have been and they would have had an obligation under the mcmahon case for any award for benefits or penalties the supreme court felt that a big man against individual and church even though the actions were improper actions notified that we would likely there's no pay more in that case he didn't notify the individual unsure of the liability that they were going to be assessed with or take any steps to address the court regarding the fact that an interested party will eventually be responsible for paying this mi t be brought into the case i think it is here and that's why this should be reversed and if need be unfortunately remand it but we have attempted to correct this mistake and have this information in the case of failure waited and december nineteenth two thousand and three and we f motion two weeks after i filed my appearance in this case an unfortunate one for eight years so far and it would be unfortunate they have a premium going to the case when the investigation should have been done and allowed for the case to be prosecuted and i don't believe there's any reason why the other fossil fuel issues at the illinois insurance guarantee front should be obligated to pay penalties or extraordinary damages on a case and the statutes certainly would preclude that and i don't think the citations of the vermont rhode island