travelers of the contamination of been found during a refinancing effort there was an environmental study the study found contamination travelers received that information that well we don't have any obligation to do anything because there hasn't been a lawsuit there is there are clearly yes there are also references in the complaint to petroleum which could be diesel fuel gasoline fuel oil anything else the girls were handling also references to dead vegetation in steam soil so marble case decided by this work your insurance versus infernal marble and others the court recognize that it's appropriate to look to evidence outside the one and only the rules that are developed about situations where there are and the way travelers as in for these exclusions they would lower all over let me focus the court on the term body of water which appears in both exclusions and travelers is arguing that that refers to groundwater second exclusion exclusion p further supports the circuit court's ruling the only illinois case that has analyzed that exclusion fertile womb in forcible forcing to grow in its papers to argue that this court any one basis would support the circuit court's ruling respectively we submit that it should be affirmed on on cream basis this is appeal is about a two thousand and nine these will fuel spill that took place three decades after my client you grow has approached this action as if it has always had a get out of jail three car its recent recollection of another spill that allegedly took place over forty years ago with this hard to grow argues that can now document that purports to memorialize seventy one still and two thousand and ten do grown affirmatively told travelers that it did not have any information regarding specific releases at the site even though they had the document they're relying on already in their possession that said s e one one six that representation by the grove regard to be clear even if there was a nine hundred seventy one still a gross claim must fail for the simple reason that it is only rule on what's in front of this court yet the complaint words would be amended they would then tender i'm sure mr huber would take a look at the actual words of an amended complaint right to be and say we now believe that this brings this claim within the scope of illinois law as discussed in our briefs in more detail fully acknowledges that we are fact leaving state that the trial court was bound not to look at hypothetical possibilities but to the actual look at the entirety of the briefing in that brief e p a s initial brief sat we don't think it's appropriate for it to grow to our race to get caught up in collateral stoffel against us their main legal reason was that contaminations such that there was property damage that took place between seventy six and eight respectfully if that's their theory of the case that far by the pollution excluded from the pollution exclusion have said if they focus only on property damage that took place between one nine hundred seventy six and ninety eight if you draw a line in many cases where they say the draft in ship of the plane if should not control respectfully please take a look at the was a turn here it's because the complaints focus is simply not on anything that happened during my client's policy period that paragraph while the complaint talks about been able to point four zero nine still paragraphs fourteen fifteen talk about inspections that evidence contamination of diesel fuel all sixteen times the complaint talks about diesel fuel it never talks about a gasoline though it never talks about any contamination cases are significant because they involve like hear specific allegations of an uncovered event devoted gallops the specific and now this specific allegation of the two thousand and nine spill doesn't implicate my client's policy trying to convince you that running prior to april twenty fourth two thousand and nine means that going back a day or a week it means going back to nineteen seventy one respectfully illinois law doesn't support  young sons also like to grow unsuccessfully attempted to rely on the affidavit environmental report to demonstrate that it's liability was greater than what was actually black the courts refusal to consider ali and sons extraneous and he described other complicated things related to groundwater well anybody who fishes no lakes have different thermal layers and the top part of the leg is called the uncle moon well just because there's a fancy scientific name for it doesn't mean that a lake is not a body of water and respectfully wrong water has always been defined by the state to be included in its definition of water ball and grown in traveller has fresh water smog they are different but they are still bodies of water there is another book pollution exclusion exclusion p d and i didn't hear any get to a dr the case that they acknowledge you have to decide has been interac for seventeen years the for whom case out of the first district to grow knowledge is the only way for it to prevail here is for this court to say that was wrongly decided for the womb found that were environmental explain if you look at this exclusion he issue where this is that result from a condition that violates the law in other words the solution applies when the release is caused by a violation of  law and the release is not into a body of water that's when the exclusion would apply for animals what's to say just the opposite that the exclusion applies and the violation of was is caused by your release that happens inspection the found a violation also in one thousand nine hundred three there was an inspection a notice of noncompliance issue there was that universal improperly stored p c b grounds in the basement and there were cracks in the walls and that could have led to damnation and that was the reason for this my patient and sure enough in this case the violation then later led to contamination and liability i would agree in that situation this exclusion should apply