both this matter comes before the court reverting to insurance policy coverage dispute specifically the amount of under insured motorists coverage available to each state under the private automobile insurance policy not so much that the five hundred but it's the six hundred thousand it's the yes we believe when you do the analysis consistent with this policy you will come out with a result three hundred thousand for the state of miss is critical three hundred thousand from the estate of mr of the code but what we're looking at here is the four corners of a contract we don't know that this policy is a contract between mr greco and us a we're looking in the four corners of this contract to determine what they're in title two because even the allows this particular position has been discounted by the illinois supreme court and the case of sell services can't country mutual insurance and i think the illinois supreme court in that case summarized the purpose and policy underlying under insured coverage provided and the under insured motorist policy now the filter for it went a little bit further and actually gave a somewhat realistic example of how to avoid certain results that are being requested by the app mentioned earlier if we assume that she imposing her uninsured the most they'd be able to recover under the policy would be a million dollars and that's what you call it has received they've received a million dollars six hundred thousand dollars from the and us a bill to get by tendering four hundred thousand dollars to bring them to a million but they're asking for much point one you've heard a lot of different various ways of calculating it and in my head no matter how calculate it you cannot pay more than a million under this policy i'm not exactly sure how he's arriving at the one point one million dollar amount it just doesn't seem to be supported it all under the policy to keep saying you know actually mentions each person it doesn't make any difference how many people as long as each person is taken into account in here it doesn't really should be considered and that basically only what that one individual person receives should be set off from the policy limits of the under insured nurse policies in those cases and the courts in both of those cases said no that's not how it works the insurance company is allowed to reduce the policy limits by the combined amount that the plaintiffs received from a tortfeasor we have multiple tortfeasor in this case we look at each recovery separately so and i hate to do this to you with math but it's under the chin policy the plaintiffs received two hundred thousand dollars total that is deducted from five hundred thousand dollars leaving three hundred under the posy policy the plaintiffs receive four hundred thousand dollars total you to death for five hundred you get one hundred what's left over is four hundred thousand dollars and that's what they were paid to reach a million which is the most that they would be able to recover under the policy and i think it's very clear from the way the policy is drafted that the power asked them when it applies in this case and on the one hand it seems like counsel is conceding  element applies and then on the other he seems to be arguing that per person limit applies and i would say that the language in the policy is fairly clear there's no reason to mention per person and her accent limits in the same paragraph for no reason at all and i would like to point out that counsel completely omitted the last sentence of that limited liability provision that says the these limits are the most we will pay regardless of the number of  like i said if this was an uninsured situation the most that they would be able to get from each tort be perfect for each one of the it would be five hundred thousand dollars so i seem to think it's really a distinction without a difference i understand that he wants the court to read every community into the policy however in the course of it's very clear that you should not take creative interpretation to make what is otherwise plain and work mary ambiguous i don't see anything within its language that is helping us and should lead to more than one interpretation of what it means there's a reason the language is structured the way it is there's a reason why and we specifically talk about what a per so your honor i did your honors i just want to get back to the point that basically what the opponent is asking the court to do is to confer upon her a benefit of an additional one hundred thousand dollars when her policy only allows her a  if there are no other questions i don't really think i have any thinking i think you can a