terms of what the holding was in that case was that they tried to determine what actually reside means and actually came out to be a question of question  the insurance policy that was issued in this case by state bar carver reginald's grandparents whom he had lived with from the time he was an infant born until he was nearly a year old in which point his mother who located two of the others that was for about a three year period which where he turned to his grandparents house he never left his grandparents house he always had a room he always had clothes he always have a longings in his direct testimony a deposition was there yes i stayed with my primarily on the day that i was interested with my grandparents because my mother was trying to get a house together the materially relevant to the claim that was made on the day of this video which was june fourteenth two thousand and three you have to look at the day of the accident and when you look at the date of the accident we're fine with it we don't know if it's reasonable we pointed out some of the cases to you that it said by metaphor if a woman is insured by her mother and she's in college and she's in contemplating getting married but at that point where she's injured in the policy comes into play she still residing with her parents is her intent going to destroy or cottage for her from the they were never the legal guardian and that those papers are there this boy had no control over that nor did we concede nor did the grandparents ever claim him on their taxes that was something that happened between them but it the boy never ceased to reside with his grandmother so we were forced to determine here is despite the trial court's findings at least inference that i think is reasonable turn on was his intent to go to another school and i understand your concern because i share the same concern you think they know where you're going and is since when did children decide where they should reside in that would  troubled by this case is the court did find it with intent to reside with graham and graham but we have testimony from their hit the court found it was the minors intent to live in chicago right and so let's assume for a fact that that is true in this record we also have deposition testimony from grandma that says no even with us and my mom who said no he lived with grandma and so i'm wondering if those three different expressed the intense create the question then i am unconvinced that they do you are and i'm also convinced that it's a question of material where you can dog the fourteen year olds in ten in terms of where you go to school i made a pledge from i did and my mother wasn't home about i didn't want to go to the catholic school and more i wanted to go to the public school because there were girls there and i straightened up the arc of my did i had him going you're inviting the court to make a finding substance will be about the facts of the case but that's not the order in which we find out we file first ours is based on construction of the insurance policy we think that there are ample facts when fourteen year old boy who was commanding the brain injury and you rely on his testimony four years three four years later which is i suppose that's what the court is deemed was appropriate but when you really read carefully on the bright our rights issue going to look at the actions his actions as well as a direct testimony indicated that i've lived with my grandma  interpretation of that language when it says quote resides primarily because when you look at the definitions of it didn't work provided in a policy that will be provided in addition there isn't blacks who are in general dictionaries like webster's it means chiefly it means first in time he fits all of those tests he was first with his grandparents chiefly the majority of his life was overwhelmed with his grandparents hand when you get down to his eighth grade year when he was in school in the road school in chicago his testimony was i was back in or just like i was for when was the previous school so the mother actually worked a forty hour job  here these folks the williams and his mom with lehtonen johnson had always tried to afford him a wife in the best areas they could they first lived in broader view and after that entitled to under insured motorists coverage under an auto policy that with issued to its grandparents on the grounds that he was not insured because he did not reside primarily with the williams based on the undisputed something in the past where did you reside so i want case law interprets insurance policies in similar type cases in uninsured motorist cases that coverage is to be determined at the time of the accident creating that potential liability so you would interpret it as where did you reside primarily at the time of the accident was a bit warmer in the us i think the quantitative can be you can look at a big picture  and consider that as a factor the time spent in a certain location but it's not dispositive out let's say there's somebody who has a family who lives in north carolina they have a job  chicago and maybe they come here five days to work but they may consider their primary residence to be in north carolina with their family well even to get into if you are all my colleagues have addresse is one of the factors that illinois courts look at when they're determining whether somebody resides somewhere and bad when you may have the results primarily you can only reside primarily in one the child was attending school in that nash elementary in chicago he managed to make it to school five days a week he testified he would get out people go to school he would come home and hang out play with his friends but his mother would cook him dinner in bed he would do his homework and if you didn't get his homework done you get up early in the morning and do this homework at most they have testimony that he would attend the other go to his grandmother's house in bowling broke on the weekends there's also testimony that he would go there when his mother had to work at a gas station that apparently was out near calling for a and that he would go along and staying with his grandparents  not even clear the spent the night there but since he was attending school he would have been in chicago with this mother who claim imagine my context when he was moving to chicago a bit when you said there's no need at that speed because he did end up back in bolingbrook after the accident after attending austin high school for a period of a residence of his son let's say the grandmother said he lived here and he says i lived in chicago and so the judge has to decide what dad's now to get done both can be correct he could have a residence in chicago he could also have a residence at his grandmother's house at the same time the same with the child who hands out divorced parents study and spends every other weekend with this so he had less of them are saying that the judge is a murderer won't win determine which one are in this case it was probably based on the undisputed facts because it's the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn based on the facts that are in the record it's not reasonable to conclude that his grandparents house  the judge determined this is a fourteen year old boy boy to make the determination about this primary residence based on where he lived the most during that entire fourteen year period you haven't put anything either in your mind or in the policy that would preclude him from doing that i don't think that's in there reasonable construction of an insurance policy it may and may be now a resident you know but my eighty six year old brother  but instead of that just because it's written an insurance policy doesn't mean it can't just have a plain ordinary meaning instead of one that an attorney is straining to find a thing most people one residence but i think based on these facts it was proper for the trial court to determine as a matter of law that the primary residence was again with the mother and there are many other fa found to be reasons for the judgment i think there are a lot of the other factors in the regular dad we include in our brief such as the tax returns that the act that he was in holden school there  he testified dance where he lent the official documents the sectioning where she replied saying that reginald would live with her and they were updated yearly and family reports that showed that he was a president of her household and then could be different in every case but looking at all the facts here in this case it is a sole custody arrangement and there's no testimony that the grandmother had ever had any sort of legal custody well  have to look at all the facts together in every case they're going to be different but i think someone like a trial judge can look at all the undisputed facts and make a decision as a matter of law as to which of the residents  chicago because you can't just look at him staying there and patiently when his mom's working at the back being a primary residence that's not a reasonable conclusion to be dropped from the stats when your can only be one residence it's not just a question the argument that the state farm made considering what someone considers their primary residence i don't think we can go to what the board considered