today as a power seeking to reverse the eight million dollars summary judgment entered against it on account of an underlying stipulated uncontested judgment because the two thousand and eleven summary judgment in its favor did distinguishable but i don't have a issue with her following what the first district said it was you it was a rule of law that was laid out ultimately it's the wall rule of law for reasons which i'll explain but i don't think the circuit court here by a by the feeling that she was bound by by x date at the time so we had two diametrically opposed opinions one was or one in one where it went the other predicting state law in the conflicts context so it presents a choice the first choice is this is it proper for courts to consider federal who are predictions your reproductions of state law as several cases in the state the us supreme court have held is it proper for courts to consider persuasive authority for whatever it might be good bad or otherwise of federal court decisions making was a conflict on this issue of a stop to defend to stop and we think does appropriate here as well there's a plain conflict between pennsylvania law and illinois law on that point but in that context take a look at the decision what this this head in the sand approach and she rejected that she found it made no sense as a dozen of the storm cases well it's another case where where the the appellate court has looked to things of that state court precedent to try to  if there is no evidence to give a court basis on which to make a determination of whether there is a right but that there must be a pair right if you close your eyes and pretend that this whole body of law doesn't exist therefore th later that side by side these cases mr show worst place who these judges are where they came from his experience with them and that has come in uncontested controverted and is part of the record in this case going back to my was the majority opinion they did not side banks they did not cite sterling i mean the cases which go the other way would never cited to the court so they have read the law which they now want to impose here in this case  i think if you look at the history of it in c and franklin you know the insurance company warner did not cite the cases that we cite to show that it's routine in this state for ceiling conflicts and in those settings to look to the persuasive value  that is a case which was ultimately big theater of the claim was withdrawn before it went up on appeal it was a trough court decision we say when you compare the nature and the quality of what what what with directions that summary judgment be entered in our favor we believe that based on the two thousand and eleven decision which is already rendered she's already done the conflicts analysis and by the way nobody here just so we're clear on the second step of the conflicts analysis everybody agrees in the la law they had three briefs and extensive argued this morning to identify a single pennsylvania statute or a single decision by a pennsylvania state appellate court or the supreme court the conflicts in any way if any step in property damage analysis was something that's been done in this in this state in the black letter law in this state they have not done it they cannot do it i think they proceed ever prove that there is no trust what the federal trial court said melrose because they cited ten pennsylvania cases those ten pennsylvania cases are pennsylvania want and if you look at ada site basic insurance coverage propositions completely different things and that is the analysis over whether there is a conflict of state law and once you are in the game once you are in the position of predicting what  hear anything about in counsel's presentation was what was actually found in the underlying case here it's all theoretical argument should be asked is standard should it be the bridgeview standard should fact that there was a belief that these people had consented to receive them which was given to penn's would by through his dealings with a third party to supply the list of the and what this court did was they analyzed in detail what those cases said and came to the conclusion that they didn't support the insurers position then the third case came up it was that i district court case call a federal district court case called cla disqualified judge mall and wrong considering the merits or the persuasive aspects of federal case law and on appeal you're not arguing the proposition that that is correct your argument facts you're arguing cases the talk about how other case other cases with other case walk comes up with a different factual conclusion as to whether or not there's a conflict and we're supposed to determine whether or not the trial court committee or the trial court originally render judgment in favor of the sentence based upon a motion to reconsider filed by your client or you she reversed her position her granting of your motion to reconsider and her changing the nature and extent of the judgment was also in your so i'm would like you to discuss whether or not  the trial the public order was correct and determining that federal case law is incompetent to be considered for we are not allowed to consider the merits of the federal case law because you seem to be beating around the bush trying to cases where the state actually made a ruling and then the federal court came a the dog wagging tail or so and so forth i'm concerned about this case and the nerves of this case you know please emote absolutely we've been consistent stating got it right in s supreme court decision that might indicate what it believed was a particular state's law are you telling us that we're not supposed to consider a u s supreme court decision as to what another state seeing whether or not the readers and it seems that you convince judge moment that in the process of analysis you cannot consider as competent evidence or whatever you wan that's fine these federal cases don't do it and that was our consideration as well it's possible to have a federal court who finds a pennsylvania law that says for example we don't in our state recognize the doctrine that if you will act intentionally but don't intend the injury injury that is an accident for insurance purposes there are states that fall that will californians one one clear in my understanding you're saying that you not only during the motion to reconsider argue the federal case book cannot be considered in any way it was also your position that you are going to judge mullen and then the will what what i said is that the actually hold what the result of a federal case is is inconsequential for the purposes of determining whether there is a conflict only  analysis only the source material from the actual state law is relevant and if you can lead a conflict in the if it's not on the ultimate question to be decided that would then why  off as we listen to mr off on the question that never gets answered is why this six data ruling makes sense there is no logic behind it that would require a court to stick its head in the sand and ignore other whole review so it would be appropriate to for this court to to issue an opinion in munchen same with the two thousand and eleven decision but adding these additional points that have come up in in in the other cases and it is the the statement the mr out on made which i agree with his ex that is what it is it's an on supported aberrational decision that came about through a misrepresentation of what the law was as of that time it should be disregarded just as for if you disregard it now we in this case even if the court somehow decides that statutory mandate provides that they don't get it because that is close said a stipulation judgement is not a finding an adjudication within the meaning of the statute that will allow them in pursuit of fact the lawyer an uncontested setting a slow something in light that doesn't give them any greater legal rights than if it wasn't there all the close applies is as much of this  did that's preposterous and moreover the place to deal with that is in the underlying case that is iraq has a problem with that judgment the judgment that was injured back in two thousand and seven it's got procedures under the illinois statutes that it can employ in order to correct an erroneous judgment certainly didn't appeal the judgment when it had a chance to do so back that  with in this case is confined to the question of whether the judgment that was injured is covered by the insurance policy and zurich has absolutely nothing to say about why their insurance