question i mean the fact is we don't write the laws we have to follow the laws and that's what courts do so isn't the real question i mean we might have a public policy whether we agree with you or not is not the issue but that isn't the issue service and they were also seeking the monetary damages they lost while their service was out in other words what they paid to the commission what they paid to kill the company for  damage was caused by peoples an ass failure to maintain its structure right is part of the point that the commission consider in other words one of the issues the commission considers is how much should we require the utility to invest in its infrastructure so that the service and provides to customers is reliable so tell me why that isn't within the commission's jurisdiction well i think there's one factor that puts it outside the purview of the commission in that stat we shot at people's gas was gas lines and those are as you may have seen in the complaint we took pictures of that and documented that and then after the fact you know people's gas doesn't come to the building owner and say oh you know it was our issue they just you know just go on and carry on with our business it would you say that your claim had to do with the adequacy of the gas company services i think that's part of the claim i also think that you know we put them was was defective and breaking down but i thought and i know i understand now where you're getting with that is you know what that lies with the commission but but if you look at i have trouble reconciling those facts with with the facts and adams versus northern illinois gas company where where same issue defective gas lines they allege that they had notice they told them and then there was there was an explosion plaintiff was hurt there and they're the they are the defendant are you the same thing all this is clearly you know you're complaining about inadequate gas here yes services this this clearly lies with the commission and there the people's gas failure to maintain its infrastructure different for your client than it is for the rest of the sun as its service yes i think in this instance is that my syria so much infrastructure which is a whole different ballgame when it talks about infrastructure and services the main take you know maintaining services for i think where i come down on that is that put them on notice of it in the end they didn't do anything about it and you know days later they're fixing the problem don't say anything i now argue you know all this belongs in the commission you can only recover for the money you litigation these allegations have been you know possibly but i mean to meet that kind of exception represent the people's gas light and coke company we are asking this court to affirm the circuit court's the smith's all of plaintiffs complaint for lack of jurisdiction so our position that this case is controlled by should we follow adams sure adams is not a service interruption case which is what we're dealing with here adams is a gas explosion case and the duty to warn of a known hazard that could cause a gas explosion it is not a case about the failure of the gas company to provide gas service gas through the pipes which is what we're dealing with here this is a service interruption case and i think that is the big distinguishing factor with adams and the reason because the tariff provision that issue in adams connector that was part of the consumers gas equipment in the tariff provision of issue addressed that customers equipment and said basically there is no general duty to inspect or warn of anything regarding a customer's equipment and what the court found in adams wise bed there is an exception to that rule and there is an exception the exception being that there is a duty to warn when the gas company knows of a hazard that could cause a gas explosion and in that case they knew that when the sulfides came into contact the brace connector corrosion would occur w result in a gas leak which when it comes into contact with any mission source there could be an explosion and so the gas company had a duty to warn in that case about in this is a do to do or so in this case or first of all we're not is no statutory authority that i'm aware of that requires the gas company to warn of a service interruption  proposition there is no duty to warn of a service interruption and i think you can c y bet is if there was a duty to warn of a service interruption it absolutely implicate rates which would then put it right back in the commission's jurisdiction and the reason is because if the gas company needs to go out in warning everyone bad oh you know you might have a an outage in a polar vortex like it is alleged in plain it's complaint the cost of doing their best going to be something that the commission is going to have to look at because the next question is how does it work k n a utility such as people's gas recover for the costs of doing bad in there then brings in the issue of rates and we're in the commission ok women send out a bill every month there's flyers and stuff they can go in those bills and say hey if we're in the middle of really bad winter and the temperature goes below blah blah blah feel or here are some things you should look for here's some steps you can take out you know that's in it and it costs you send out bills every month any help might but my question is this case is not involved something that the consumer some equipment of the consumers this case only involves equipment people sca people guess was called out they came up twice they were aware that there was a problem then they lied about it and on top of lying about it they didn't do anything about it and then things went crazy in the building i mean having a hard time answering your question well i'll rephrase it so when you went out the two times you went out i'm assuming that the inspectors the staff people that went out if there was something wrong with the system recognize it or else they there is no  sure i'm still struggling to answer the question because whether it's worth or not we're still talking talking about the adequacy of the service your guys are standing there looking at something and saying oh this isn't right and then they not only walk away from it they cover  back up again and walk away from it and they tell them why it nothing's wrong and if and if there's a remedy for that it's in the commission if you know whether it's whether that's well for or not if there's a remedy for it it's in the commission and the reason it's in the commission is because it goes to the continuous service of the gas provided by people scared so sure if unless they're on notice that hey there's a problem here with our building where we're experiencing a problem with our building say it was in the middle of again i think whether it's known about or not it's a service eruption that belongs before the commission i don't think that there's a distinction because it's made between well for not well for when we're talking about section nine dash two fifty two of public severe storm that would cause a power outage at those allegations of the failure to warn the customers that com ed knew that their equipment couldn't withstand a bad severe storm were  rejected is it because everybody lives and should have a notice that when it's one hundred five at five o'clock everybody turns on their conditions and there's going to be some problems with service you just expect consumers understand that there are going to be problems of their bad weather and you hoping that there isn't something you know that there is something how is that not a willful omission or at least at the very least say look we can't get into this right now it's all a building here are some things you can do to protect yourself right and again whether whether it's well fall or not it's our position that that claim that people's gas willfully failed to repair it edison what you're saying that it is still the preparations if they came out and gave and they messed up they say absolutely in this case we're not talking about everybody else running talking about this is not a class action this is an individual something that should be canvassing in that won't buy damages there's there's a remedy but the regulatory system that's been created in the state of illinois in the public utilities act in the creation of the commission i'm limits that gravity and so the you know whether the utility is is put on notice of a problem with it commission and it is i do recognize there's a limitation of liability here and i think that's included in the chair right that is included in the tariff and i think that beyond or supreme court recognized that in chef where  there is a limitation of liability going on here and the reason for that is that utilities are regulated monopoly is separate also recognizes there are simply actions that there are torts when the actions are well fall goes more to my claims is the fact that we had we had put them on notice of this harm actual notice and brought them out twice so we believe that you know there is an exception recognizing the adams case for those circumstances are real or getting people do you think in people's guest service area call all people's gas and saying i'm having a problem and service person comes out things i don't find it i don't monopoly that is regulated heavily by the commission and is are now free to go out and x interest rates and pay their executives you know i think it's all regulated by the commission that it's not free market they weren't prepared for something like this but you know the gist of our complaint is that we told you guys twice and maybe they did come out of place but they also told us affirmatively there's it's not our issue it's yours