contribution but it might be remarkable as well in the sense that the periods played very little role in the proceedings below am what was what was what was what was the evidence below regarding what the fairies really wanted in february of two thousand and five regarding their business with mid century what they really want the there is really wanted want coverage over their dodge durango with mid century yes i believe the treasury did acknowledge that it was the entire s so what evidence is there that mid century should be held to a policy that covers capital honestly your honor i don't think there is evidence else there is a support there it's it's the written policy itself correct that posi itself in the absence of i think your honor i don't i don't have the full record of the durango policy because it was not at issue but i think that what what we do have is evidence that there is a paid for reinstated policy in february two thousand and five and then in mid century issued a reinstatement policy in february of two thousand and five and the berries received an insurance card covering the dodge durango in february of two thousand and five saw what if the what happens there your honor was a simple misunderstanding that was said to him for the purpose of my coverage for the durango i thought theory yes but there they had i'm going premium that will fallacies are one i'm not sure i understand the question you just told me there were two that they laughed as to each policy the insurance would have to pay premium the intent of the secure our insurance or any similar insurance on the policy will automatically turn that's correct and so policy was technically back the poor because it related that it was back and therefore when the other insurance on the same vehicle and then that's the problem i have because as just rick bryant is just clarified in the questions that she's asked the few you are you're taking the position that the cancellation clause applies and was triggered all of which assumes that the policy was correctly written after the chevy cavalier and so that seems to be an odd position to take here when you have also acknowledge the evidence below was everything to indicate that dodge durango should have been covered and not the chevy cavalier which is that our position is and was that there was a mistake and insure that there was a mistake why does the cancellation clause anything to do with this case at all if there was a mistake i think you look at it you can look at it as one of two ways and i think this court brought a refreshing new perspective to it asking us for the stuff about the way we looked at it  was that there was a meeting of the minds of the parties that there would be no coverage for the cavalier in the circumstance where there was other insurance perkier to replace the worry is that the supplemental briefing caused us to to secure insurance for the car that the bury cited so there was a meeting of the minds regarding an insurance policy for the question was did that cover the chevy cavalier or did it cover the durango there is no ever asked me to supplement a break your honor spread the grapes were concerned that there had been a waiver once i convinced myself that it wasn't my paper that would it it was instead that sentry's waiver i could not did was that the intention was of the mutual intention of mid century and the periods to cover the doctoring now what's your role here was the mutual intention of the parties and that was memorialized in their documentation we wouldn't be here today because there wouldn't be a declarations showing the capital they are with in effect the judgment of the declaratory judgment basically removing them from the case what position do you think they'd be taking here do you think they'd be taking the same position that they took below that is that they eat when they feel paid that two hundred fifty dollars premium their intention was to reinstate the policy on the top story that was their testimony after depositions i have to assume that it would offend their testimony if they hadn't signed the script relation i believe th were relieved that the loss had been settled and they just wanted to get on with their bodies i can't say that i blame them for that i don't believe they really care one way or the other who's paying life but the  cover this loss and we have a breach of the notice profession as your honor correctly pointed out we don't even need to get to those arguments if there was never a policy in effect the fact that they're that the automatic terminations provision applies for the alternative that the notice provision a beis suggests that it is their position that there was a policy that reinstated effective february time the timing of the reinstatement is is what i believe of the time the payment was received and the date on the declarations page so that would have indicated that from the time that payment was messed until the time of payment was received there would have been a last hit in this case the reinstated the time their policy reinstated your policy predated right so it would have been it's the it's the textbook definition of a loser e coverage except exactly what is yet fit was not raised in the trial or it was not briefed before the trial for i brought it up during the oral argument before judge novak wondering why it hadn't been made because i would be making an argument but it wasn't and it bill itself of automatic terminations and reinstating two days after our policy which just can't happen and the notice again i believe the trial court correctly found that there was a reasonable excuse for not notifying the insurance company that you thought you didn't have any more i can't think about a reason not to vote by insurance company but the fact that they tender at these documents to mid century a few months after arguably they were served tells me that there was still this uncertainty you know what maybe mid century still didn't show the cavalier the time of this accident let's tell them about this lawsuit so it wasn't clear i mean and all of the cases there are too many cases in illinois dealing with automatic terminations we have other terminology like cancellation by substitution and things but but but i bring this up for the simple fact the same up there not the same but the cross also concentrate on the facts of each individual case very much what's going on in the parties mights what's going on on pay per and what's going out on paper in this case is that the policy reinstated two days after our p intent the coverage they wanted to have from mid century at the time of this accident was for the dodge durango and that that is why when they found out that there was a mistake with regard to coverage for the cavalier instead of sending notice right then and there of the accident they were well aware of that had requested cancellation and i think that has raised the question about mutual intent in and of itself and i also believe that we've provided to the court numerous sides  the argument on summary judgment where mid century did in fact say that it was made centuries argument that this was a mistake and i don't think i need to belabor by quoting those we've cited them in our brief but they are there so the argument that we did the year you think we came within the same scope and we're talking about the same facts that how broadly we we read i understand but i think we're talking about the same facts as the stuff dispositive that there was a mutual intent that there be no coverage here