mutual biased if you're told back in two thousand and five after two thousand and five there were several renewals which were countless by the simple filling out of one sheet of paper which i'm sure your honour's have read over and over again as i know i this is really judgment case and then this ensured close provides that whatever coverage under this policy will be excluded or lost and that's what happened here your honour's this coverage was lost by will to peter's jury because of the insurance failure to provide timely notice the company griese that such insurance as would otherwise be afforded under this policy should be a clickable it's with respect to any insurer who do not personally fail to give timely notice after having knowledge of the conduct that forms the basis of the claim all insurance covers by this provision must be you must immediately comply with all policy provisions regarding reporting the claim upon wording of the un report that i application on the was look at the court center question six a on the renewal application after inquiry is anywhere aware of any claim incident after omission in the last year that could result in a professional liability claim against any mr cooper found some hot water because he has bad vestments i think it was with the ladies basketball team back in the seventy's well the chicago hustle he lost a lot of money and because he lost a lot of money he ended up dipping into the trust account without his partners requiring their specific language in the home insurance policy it says by acceptance of this policy the insurer which is all the instant millionaires fall under the definition of the insured agrees that the statements in the application are personal representations that shit they shall be immaterial and that this policy is issued their dirtiest nothing in here there is nothing in the whole application is one piece of paper that we read over and over again on the reasonable expectations the policy then goes on to say of course in a church company can preclude interpretation of language to guess it by including clear and unambiguous policy like they could they statements in the application are the representations of insurance and then in a footnote going to sue the usual case said insurers are defined as the law firm and the two individuals are in the two individual attorneys to selena in his own individual representation possibly could be determined that he's also asking acting on behalf of a law firm as well because the law for can't act unless one of its members act but he is not between him and i's be a mutual he's got an innocent insured clause that says listen if there's something out there that you don't know about and it costs at the way you making the claim you still have  and again i think that provides coverage also in a case like involving summary judgment granted rescission and the standard of review was abus us her with respect to the innocent insured provision the severability and other aspects of a policy is a bootstrap policy doesn't exist so we can't look at provisions in the policy to say that the cover you have nothing whatsoever to do with policy or mission it is interesting to know that if you take away the argument that you heard with respect to step of the argument that you heard with respect to the innocent and sure  wisconsin file false pleadings in other cases in illinois then offer the client six hundred seventy thousand dollars in us money and that it has all the things to selena that alleged in detail in the lawsuit that was sort of there after rescinded because the misrepresentation went to the policy formation the policy didn't come into existence we heard about new hampshire we heard about the loss and case in new jersey this court doesn't need to go that drawer and the christie supreme court decision from new hampshire the distinction is the policy provisions that apply to a misrepresentation in an application for the policy the misrepresentation section one fifty four to provide insurance for for those who have insurance policies isn't that don't that well that it would be saying that every every claim that's made discovered because the insure rebel at the policy you were at the application will take the position your orders that misrepresentation on the application precludes a policy from coming into existence therefore you can't look at a policy in its provisions and say the provisions of the policy of the didn't come into existence some act to allow that policy to exist for the purpose of exercising from the fall off the party who didn't participate so your your argument is that the moment the disdain they may have for the insurance company the insurance industry in the concept of recession should not cause this court to depart from one established illinois law and recognize that there was no abus it covers the public policy behind section one fifty four is to protect insurance from possible fraud by insurance agents and faster finding answers given by insurers and by for insurance it is a commercial protection statute it's not a statute that gives a church here any more rights that it would have either wise with regard to get the home insurance versus done no nobody's followed by asking this court to reject it it's not fair it's not right and it is if asked mr chambers indicated just look at the application that's all we're looking at the application and home insurance versus done specifically states that representations of the guy signing this are the representation