made by claimants against certain very identified defendants not everyone just certain defendants and only certain melodies are allowed and like a breach of contract claims unlike twenty claims arista even though yes it has an employee welfare benefit plan as its own animal it is simply not a corporation and it does not seem proper to assume that it doesn't business such as any other corporation because it's that is possible as well but just that the general standard is that plans are sued whether administered which is where the planet minister is located in the address in this specific plan is in marion williamson county same arguments which the circuit quite did not want to entertain example the plan administrator can be sued for example a plan administrator is usually a company a company can certainly be found somewhere and reside somewhere i don't plan is not a company it is technically a vessel it's a trust for all intents and purposes possibly it gets created somewhere and that's where it's being administered it does not by itself that coverage who are the possibility to make claims for benefits which follows the terms of the plans it's just not an entity that goes out and contracts and hires people and these claims and the plan document which is the part that governs this entire lawsuit it's all about the plan document everything that happens and everything that steals and files has to follow the terms of the document  what is to be governed and what is not to be governed a plan made for benefits to a certain type of employee not to the time that is their prerogative they made including exclusion they may consider certain things hi vis their meaning provide benefits bodies that make them provide benefits for certain surgeries that may not provide benefits for drug treatment that is their prerogative and those terms are what should government any type of for you determination that's being made by a court unless the term review of the determination that issue here because the plan again and i am not trying to belabor the point but the plan troops themselves grey and the plan administrator discretionary authority to make a determination  way as a result of our concerns while and while means that at the time off not anything else will cancel nexus just a temporal one and i think we can all agree that a temporal condition has certainly and when you initially apply for an auto policy you get a dec page which says from x to x policy will run what happened in this specific case according to save on those documents which were very received in the included in the administrative record by my client is that a credit check after the policy was initially issued resulted in increased premiums that increase premium was not paid by mr watkins as a result of that after it had been initially issued the policy l in december prior to the injury the injury occurred in february the following year the premium had never been paid all of those documents are in the administrative factored and where specifically pointed to a motion it ok once the back page was submitted to my client safer i was contacted to verify that there was still coverage and that's also in the administrative record demonstrating that say out of step there was no coverage at the time of the accident and so i observed in the sense that that could be the nile coverage inside just want to ask you about one that just came to my mind you know if somebody let's say was driving with ten miles over  question of processing those claims in accordance with the terms of the plan which is what we had asked the judge to find because the plan enough itself sets out what exactly happened this network providers with their claims directly to the plan  there was no for there a verification of any of this undertaken by the by the circuit court we ended up with a number which basically just tells somebody what the medical expenses for but it does numbers right numbers and sat if we were to process these claims had with it as if we had received them and approved them when they were submitted this is what we would have paid and given the legal either one and for several circuit made it clear that the ruling was not because it was drunk driving but the ruling was because it was illegal and a fight in our where there was no issue in the credit agrees with our position that venue was improper basically we would start from the beginning and williamson county meaning the case should be transferred and then we have to be filed our motions for summary judgment and see what happens client to process the invoices but that would usually go hand in hand with an affirmation of a summary judgment ruling in favor of plaintiff and then the room and to go ahead and do whatever they should have done had they proved i would have done had they approved the rule on the existing briefs by the correct way the issue could be taken as it is and have the current just review the motion for education but i don't last thing i wouldn't be so sure but i could see that it gets transferred into quite gross on the existing briefs and the administrative record given the fact that the administrative record is what it is arguably maybe no supplemental briefs would be needed and the case could be transferred for have jurisdiction in bounds the state's ability to exercise control doesn't invalidate counties ability to exercise control illinois certainly has jurisdiction over this plane personal jurisdiction the particular forum and there's no question that we have personal jurisdiction this case and even if we did there's no question that it has been way because the defendant has never claimed lack of personal in fact as we sit here today the only thing in this record regarding where this so called plan is administered is in the plea ye t i think it's a pay for the plan let me give you the exact cite your honor notion to transfer venue the standard the legal standard to determine appropriate venue is if the defendant hears what objection the defendant has the burden of proving the facts the would qualify it in one respect if you look at the motion it's only preserved on the basis of the things they argued in the trial court they never argued in the trial court that the plan should not be treated as a corporation for jeff had a right to appeal that decision to the plane administrator jeff exercise that right and when he exercised his right of appeal he twenty this is an amended declaration page and on its face it says this amended declaration page supersedes prior declaration page issue and then i look at the usual date and it terms of its judgement but i look at this under both standards of review and reach the same conclusion under a deferential standard of review regarding my interpretation of this exclusion so interpretation of this illegal activity exclusion is so bizarre go further with that i'm sure you are because you state that really there is no requirement under arrest that of the plans counsel and i want to start with the basic sisters of the rd or which apparently is the be the one that believes that miss kristen says stands for the proposition that causal break is not required said that the district court construed the term in the exclusion well engaged in as meaning as a result of in other me resulting from him since the incident in this case a drunk driver hitting the tree rez related to his state of illegal activity it's great to be more likely to get hurt if i'm driving my car at the wrong or i'm a reckless driver i mean more maybe more likely to get there but if i'm it more likely to get hurt and increasing the risk of a plan and not increasing the risk of injury the interpretation of the plan was to upon its beneficiaries including kaitlin you said it doesn't make any difference issues which vary if you happen to be doing something that's illegal at the time you get injured you're sure you're and i would agree with that because that relates to the level of risk that the plan is undertaking if i am totally innocent of any knowing misconduct and i'm certainly not increasing the risk of injury and then increasing the plan's exposure to medical expenses it and you know you make a point justice welch that i think is something this is kind of the overarching issue in terms of interpretation of this exclusion the basic cardinal rule when looking at an exclusion an insurance policy a health plan or what have you would a reasonable beneficiary reasonable  phrase and the reason they say that is because illegal activity can mean just about anything and some of the examples that were cited in particular in the biko's case i think air flight instructor work that's in violation of some local ordinance i was engaged in illegal activity i might well even know beads alleged illegal activities not having the construction permit didn't have any to do with my injuries didn't have any would do with the plans risk now let me turn to the issue of damages before i conclude and opportunity to present their evidence so the standard of reviewing be awarded damages is manifest way to be evidence required should be reversed only will be appealing party present evidence that is strong and convincing enough to overcome completely the evidence and presumptions existing in the opposite party's favor that's the standard  im the appeal when we dig the bridge in late submit declaims to the plan they gave him short shrift they didn't consider anything they denied the claim on a bogus basis there's no reason to they violated a half dozen provisions of the he beat the appeal section to the play and they're all set forth in our brief to be made in this case to the same plan administrator append the explanations of benefits and under verified spec sheet the plan offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever with respect to the amount of the confidential judge i'm not going to tell you yet remain ending this case to the plan under those circumstances is not an appropriate remedy particularly when we have evidence yuri admissions that establish the amount of benefits payable now i want to make  yes and the i do want to make one point regarding this because it's somewhat confused you know i get the c e o piece in the mail from my insurance carrier and it takes me a half an hour to figure me out in the reply higher than regional where there were discounts applied and maybe the implication is well the judge group didn't take that into account but neither of the claims that are cited answer because that is the threshold question is whether he should have been awarded beasts incidental question is how much the supreme of the united states in construing risk says the award of attorney's fees is entirely within the discretion of the trial or the principal factors although a number of the and the plan for us at every juncture in this case and of course the stakes in this case the other principle factor was sitting controversy were enormous we're looking at a child who is permanently disabled that is going to have medical expenses for the rest of her life on account of this injury and among other things the court enjoying the plan from relying on this exclusion and the court didn't give me when i asked for but he did give me more then multiplying the number of hours that i spent by a particular rate he said that is not going to be sufficient in this case he says because of the factors a new graded by the supreme court of the united states in deciding how much  those are all legitimate factors and in terms of the last factor the contingency how is someone like jeff walk in is going to get a lawyer if he can at obtain full and fair review on appeal i submit an appeal by business days later i get a letter now from the plan administrator but from the m c a saying tough well they didn't consider any of the arguments that all right thank you so much  read expenses have to be incurred while engaged in the problem with that in this if the expenses i remember call expenses the medical expenses are not incurred while somebody drives strong and hits the tree while somebody drives uninsured and topples over should prevail at the end of the day which is that the claims should be processed as they would have been processed back in the day because that only that and share stand and if it's do ip and no matter how many times