see it correctly so tell me to the city accountable first one being the involving tangible property the next being the loss of use and then third and fourth when the go hand in hand is occurrence an accident i first want to talk about tangible property that in my opinion is the crux of this case and more specifically whether money cash money checks what have you in this case and the circumstances whether that is it fits the definition of tangible property under this law and i'm patient agreement and although a person may appear that i'm trying to expand the definition of tangible property i'm not so much because really in eleanor that we don't have a case in anywhere in the country at least that i could find where it really discusses in these circumstances is money tangible property so no judge posner and in the old the case which is current briefing will talk about one of the things he commented on that the correct interpretation of tangible property depended on the legal consequences of it so to me that legal consequences are always going to be different every case and i think this is it takes exactly correct where it's really going to be a case by case analysis as to whether you know money should be tangible property and this is a unique case the underlying case i should say  unique it's a class action case involving vehicle and pounding fees imposed by miss a pal of these there's no appellate final court decisions on that in illinois then there are certainly isn't anything in the country that's pretty unique caissons courtney that lends it she uniqueness to this case for the court but still i'm not asking for a broad sweeping new definition of tangible property the one i'm talking about would just be a limited set of circumstances and the circumstances would be that there's no physical destruction of the property and that's important because in the property damage definition in this policy there's two problems the first prong requires there to be physical destruction the property i want to set that aside right now that first prong the second prong of it is with the loss of tangible property there is no physical destruction of the property and that's one of the circumstances around talking about no physical destruction of the property the second circumstance i'm talking about would be that we're talking about money paper checks something people can exchange hand and i'm not talking about electronic funds here or some other i don't have a lot of a by i'm talking about things that people can feel are exchanged back and forth receipts and sorts of that type of thing is beyond money and in the last circumstance i think there needs to be an actual transaction between people that i know there's some cases in here involving theft and i'm not talking about trying to get coverage money is a tangible property for perfect situations i do concede some of the cases i've cited did involve but as i said there's no there's no case that i know of this on cour whereas with it including my own but i do think there are very persuasive when they talk about money as being tangible property that even though they do involve they are persuasive and i do you think they hope the court that we're not trying to break ground here so i do  think money yeah i'm asking that money be considered in those limited circumstances tangible property that would cover our first or first element here coverage from the association moving to loss of use this is been a bit of a red herring issue or rabbit hole issue which of analogy for one and i'm guilty of chasing down myself in this free the loss of use the bait in a lot of the cases that discussed loss of use for all involved in this first prong the property damage definition that definition where it has destruction of property and can you have loss of use is it really hard to have a loss of use with destruction of property and that really goes out the window with what i'm talking about here today because the loss of use that i'm talking about is from the second and there is no destruction of property so i think it's an obvious that we have a loss of use in this case the underlying plaintiffs paid money to the city they don't have the use of that many anymore it hasn't been destroyed it hasn't burned up it's not like a car furniture that's been totally destroyed permanently lost it's a temporary loss and that's what courts talk about it being a temporary loss so that money has not been destroyed there is of the some some sort of representation that can be given back to them on it so they've lost the there's no permanent deprivation to the planners the plaintiff did bring up a couple cases in those on those los abuse issues it was the reason the simonson advance network case those cases involve loss of use again under i think what would be the first prong where they involve thefts that involve thefts where insurance company was not going to give coverage when your employee or your office or steals from another person or steals from your own company unless this is under general liability policy i realize one the collin case brought up by on the loss of used by the plaintiff in that case was a sting was because it involved the permanent loss of the property i think it was furniture in that case and they gave a nice analogy of a car and i you can't have a permanent loss  use of a car and run a value of the car car but either in the in the simmons advanced network column don't apply here because they all involve totally different circumstances of what i'm proposing for the definition of tangible property and  there or is there naxa then but there is no definition of accident but the supreme court u s supreme court has in my brief gives a definition of what an accident is and basically so long as the city did not expect or intentionally correspond to the underlying plaintiffs then there is no accident in this space or there is an accident space excuse me it basically makes intent intent to do harm and to do something wrong has been the element that would take make it not an so there's no evidence whatsoever in the underlying complaint that city intentionally harm did yes they intentionally pass an ordinance but to say that they wrongfully intended to wrongfully deprived money or illegally deprived money as it's be alleged that there is actually an intent there that's not part of the case undermine it whatsoever so i think with that we do have an accident thus we have an occurrence so if we the good goes back to the crux you know what is tangible property is money in these limited circumstances exchanging hands haven't paperwork involved was no destruction of property there's money in that limited circumstance tangible property under this definition i think it is should wielding a club that you have to take it or leave it to the contrary it's pointed out in the intergovernmental con cooperation agreement this is a cooperative program of risk management the losses are borne by all the municipality s and they dictate through an agency the i am now in may that they create a procedure and language and an agreement to determine what of their individual who will it we think that should be kept in mind here now because this case depends on contra preference them or anything like that but just in terms of the total it is sad should be remembered that these this is a self the fin merely forms they they are they have been modified over the years there's some forms you have it here at the at the bottom of the pages that show when that particular form was put into effect for the first time so the terms do change and there's of letter that goes out on a yearly basis that to the members that talks about what the changes are and if a member doesn't like this if a member wants coverage for this kind of risk resented in this case  of this starts out with we cover everything well no it doesn't that's what stuck in my craw maybe it doesn't cover everything if you want to make that kind of i think it didn't really broad overly broad comment because nothing is ever that everything is ever risks being covered by different portions of the hour make coverage grants with those risks being covered in that one section x fluid and other sections why is this important because the underlying things like passing legislation that deprive someone of a constitutional right or other actions that deprive someone of constitutional rights if we were arguing irony for the burden would then be on us to show that the exclusions apply which they do in this particular and that's why we're not arguing how it may for and why collinsville has never argued our instead because it is clearly this case is clearly excluded by the wrong so i wanted to offer that as a backdrop to this argument and i'll go into the those three elements or four elements but i wanted to remind the court that it is  is that there is clearly a place where this type of act if not it's specifically excluded would have been covered and if this is the type of conduct this deprivation of someone's constitutional rights and that kind of claim there is a place in this coverage agreement where that type of claim is typically covered and the municipalities have decided to x loued some of those claims and we were cite those in our brief and again collins rules never argue that those are exclusions don't apply or should apply and instead are trying to shoehorn this case into a totally different kind of let me try to address the the argument specifically made here so we start with the capacity or schmidt underlying complaints one count substitute due process and what is the damage alleged that complaint of complaints stated that the plaintiffs have been deprived only a part of what the but they seek in compensation now does allege damage but what they're seeking compensation for that deprivation constitutional rights is the value back of the money that they paid in and we have mean some people could have paid cash some people could have used the debit card some people could have paid with an app on their own i mean we have nothing on that there's nothing in the record on that there's nothing in  is certainly part of the dialogue of the other courts and all the cases that have been cited to you we believe has cited by several court decisions that even hard cash if i were taking money out of my pocket and put it here in exchange it with mr got a lot of that even that would not be the destruction of property we think the cases and it's a bit of a philosophical mindbender but we think that the the dialogue or the writings of judge posner are one the  and georgia is another the advanced case out of california really have it right that the piece of red paper it is representative of a concept and today's than what it represents and it only represents something of value because we repose faith in the government and society to have our systems of finance now it's like we're seeing how conceptual that is how intangible that is because people are switching to like chain technology and it doesn't even exist with respect to the government so we're seeing wild value fluctuations in in value but it's the same thing what is in my pocket sorry money around the courtroom but what i have in my pocket this dollar bill is worth nothing except until somebody recognizes its value but the piece of paper the red paper it is printed that it's not worth  so that the station that the courts drop judge posner did the mac case did one of the other cases talked about the difference between value and use so what's value what is tangible property when it comes to money is the first dollar i made as a lawyer that i have hanging up an office someone else pointed out that the grandfather's money received as as a forty nine er in california where there is something or judge posner talked about the twenty dollar bill that has michael jackson's picture on it said of andrew jackson's peers and therefore it's a piece of art that has value that's a thing that's tangible the twenty dollar bill is representative of the entire financial concept that we deal with that we believe in it's valuable it has value but it is not tangible property so we disagree in any way that what was done here even assuming evidence of cash payments which isn't there and is there per shop but even if it were there we would still argue that capacity schmidt are not asking for the return of whatever it is they paid when they paid with a twenty dollars fifty dollar bill they're not getting that fifty dollar bill back and as judge posner posits in his opinion if they got to twenty's and it there are five hundred sorry they got can't do the math why i'm a lawyer they got all twenty if they got five hundred dollars and twenty's back in set of five one hundred that they paid with they're not compliant if they got a check back they're not complain that they're not getting the tangible property back and they're not disagree completely and i would point out that most of the brief but the collinsville offered was a discussion on really what we had conceived as in the policy in the coverage france which is that there is a definition face but here was of use how it was not being consistent they want to say on the one hand that the five hundred dollars paid by the class plaintiffs was somehow tangible property they're not getting we don't think it's tangible property but he did it is then it's got to be to that it's got to be permanently gone because nobody's asking for it back nobody's getting it back nobody's even claiming they're trying to get it as a permanent deprivation and is therefore is therefore not to come out in reply i still don't know what they think the occurrences is if the passage of the ordinance is it something that happens if the impounding of the cars is it something is it receiving a payment point we argued extensively before judge it was there is no evidence here of intent intent the absence of intent to create create act are not an accident so in illinois we have the fighting case for example where a building fell down for gosh sakes and it was because there was no bracing put into it as a in a court ruled it wasn't an accident because it was a natural consequence of failing to put in place when he decided not to put in pricing it's a natural consequence of what would happen without the proper bracing here we have a municipality presume to know the law and understand the legal consequences of its a option actions which has passed an ordinance that set forth when x y z happens we have pounded your car on the following circumstances when those things happen you have to pay five hundred dollars to get your car back the intense clearly was under these circumstances that the members of the public such as the putative class plaintiffs in  case by law have to turn over five hundred dollars in order to get their car they did that they got the car the natural consequence of passing legislation saying you have to pay five hundred dollars to get your car back  is people paying five hundred dollars to get the car back when those circumstances arise which they were expected to hence passing legislation and they did hence the pay the five hundred dollars by these plaintiffs in a lawsuit so to argue that and the consequences of passing the legislation designed to collect the money in these circumstances is what took place here and therefore is how the accident began to extent it is an x that it was an accident that happened two thousand they passed the legislation has the receipt of money or a wrongful act i suppose they could make that argument that would place it within the policy period for that purpose but i don't think that's still the argument that made it up and accept it's not accidental it's precisely what was contemplated legislation it was indeed the intent of the legislation and they got what they were asking for which is five hundred dollars for all these people every time the cars were around which is what they set out to do so for that reason for those reasons we are confident that this is not as contemplated on the general liability policy and accident and i go point out only for rights coverage for wrongful acts which is a defined term to argue this point but if they were not excluded there would be coverage as a wrongful act passage of legislation is a wrongful act that's not what we're dealing with here it's not your out of time council thank you very much word perhaps does come into play it suggested that ok it to me it is just like a private policy here's the terms pay the premiums if you don't like it fine another insurance company the only difference in this one i guess theoretically the members could get together and and at the end of the year petition or whatever they do and get the policy change whereas in a private individual you can't do that but to me it's all the same at the at the end of the year you get here's your policy change we all fell in the door and nobody does anything about it i still think you know why the in the insurance loss concept still apply indemnification agreement or not but i think that maybe the point of why he stresses that is that the definition see it because it because it is perhaps not adhesion or whatever but i think there's some blame on the cities that a few don't like the terms given change but i think what i think the problem with that is and i speculate here though is why that's argued that way is because the definitions really don't fit and so the association can say well hey you can change the definitions we don't make them up for example i work backwards here if we don't like the definition of occurrence be an accident then why doesn't the association just put in what it wants to be is defined a that it's harm that should be legally did that's not foreseeable there's nothing perceivable by that that you know that it's causing somebody you know it's it's not so much the payment of the five hundred dollars that is the harm that it's an illegal payment or an excessive payment that's the allegation it's a subtle distinction but you know i don't doubt at all that the city intended pass the ordinance of course they did but they did not do that willingly knowingly that it was an illegal  it was not foreseeable that it was an illegal act with a foreseeable it was excessive and that's where the definition which you know is the definition of accident the other it's not about you know and then we go back to the other definition of two is we talked about those exact same dollars whether they're made of that would be returned it's whether they're made out of the five hundred dollars whether it was a cat a check back to them or whether they paid in fifties or a hundred dollar bills or whether they use their debit card you know it's not about serial numbers on the exact same dollar bills getting back those exact same serial numbers it's not about that that's not that's not the definition that's all of our definitions but that's not the definition here that fits in the property damage definition in the policy because what property definition in the policy and maybe this is where one up on why it's you know with the association being a pool you know that tangible property has not been physically altered or destroyed and so it fits that definition now it's not our common sense that you get not supposed to get the same hundred dollar bills back in my five hundred now but it's not been physically altered and destroyed so with this that definition that's not the definition they want then it should be changed  the complaint those reference the exchange of five hundred dollars and receipts so i think there's enough in there clean that there is actually a paper exchange going back and forth the r m four endorsement has to do with my interpretation has to do with officers and employees of the city when they're involved in lawsuits are there still in the city or that type of thing so i don't think that's the pits at all in the underlying case no individual parties being sued in the underlying case or r m a for does not fit curious thing the definition of a member of the includes the corporate entity of council and it definitions pretty hard so when you read it kind of pulls you because members also an officer and i believe also employee of the city so they kind of jumbles in the