the issue of race to the cat is also implicated in this matter because the only reason the issue here is that the very same lawsuit was previously filed back in two thousand and eight dismissed by tolling which has never been applied in illinois to a case like this when applied once involving the addressing a federal statute and the reason they're here before you is that in the original case it's a segregation matter and they have brought the claim pursuant to an equitable subrogation clay their churches owsley require written subrogation at the time the case was heard they did not have the biblical written subrogation from its mcgrath litigation for the rest of your careers people will hold back a certain cause of action if i don't have the opportunity to bring it to the original suit or for whatever reason i couldn't bring  original suit this court has already found in the prior appellate decision that american family insurance wasn't extraordinarily prevented from bringing that equitable or excuse one point one million dollars check for property they didn't get the written assignment of the subrogation play that they needed pursuant to their own insurance that's why we're here today they did not perfect their rights of subrogation so every time we read in their careers or hear in their oral argument we work extraordinarily american family failed to perfect its subrogation rights additionally under the concept of equitable subrogation you don't file your suit until after the statute of limitations has run and that's why i used equitable subrogation tr told the statute of limitations again just as we don't have that problem here today they file their suit against mr plunket in the two thousand and eight case there's no justices my client didn't do it i don't know what happened and then we appeared we defended the case and we prev by there's not one case out there that allows for there is one case in illinois that has applied the concept of equitable told and that is the williams versus border view case interpretation of all things a federal statute the federal trade act of one thousand seventy four and forgive me justice is it was so dense and so hard to follow i believe the fairly in that matter was simply bad because of the rules and regulations involved in that attack they found that the plaintiff in that matter could not by following those rules filed in a timely manner again we don't have the concern here because in t i don't want it to be lost on you the supreme court recently recently as when i was right the prospective december of two thousand and twelve in the county matter has said and it's pretty black letter law based you to kind of limitations you need to understand tactically why it's before and the reason tactically it before your router is simply that is the only way or the only man in which in my opinion to circumvent the prior findings of both the trial court and you have a court in the two thousand and eight case so i think it's our arsenal of this court's analysis of whether or not the doctrine of equitable stoppel applies in this matter because of the purpose for which it is it can be for the court certainly has the ability but so chooses to take that related question needed to address this issue and i would advice the court or representative court in order to fully address these issues you need to be at least aware of the two thousand and eight case and the you want to say she can't be rebuttal your honor unless the bench hesitant questions for me on this issue right now i think i've covered what i want to copy thank you very much the second birth you know that let me ask you a question was american family prevented from filing this lawsuit in an extraordinary manner here yes tell me what is that extraordinary enforce my client's right to sign that was filing the chance reaction as a specific performance case at the same time the judge burke's two thousand and eight cases pending as to whether or not there was a company had the opportunity based on the state of a law to bring an action which it did well you know if we if we follow your theory then when ever an insurance company  clause and they do not have to obtain an assignment of the separate patient rights it would be automatic they're basically pursuing their rise diligently against a defendant who knows what's going on and there are two appeals and those appeals control the end result of what american family can and cannot do during that period of time with all due respect i think those cases should have been told and when they signed it was scott of the short answer your question just i don't know i simply don't know it's always a good answer but also is there the truth behind it just now