us forward justice reyes has asked us to indicate to you his apologies and also that he will certainly listen to the recordings and and he has the briefs and he will participate hers russians would you please sub identify your i personally find it confusing the question here is how you interpret the language with respect to these various symbols and descriptions when you can in the policy when you compare that to the page that lists the trucks that are insured and i said that's all that's correct if there are circumstances where this would be very clear and in fact if one security language and policy references that east yes well that that they would be covered under symbol forty seven they call them hired off and all right it's just forty seven occur anywhere no it does not know and that's that's that's exactly my point and there is a place on a very small trace it's not a lot said white it's a very small place for autos that you lease and use in your business and that or those that you lease and don't use in your business and then to defeat the conflict in the confusion that came up here forces that they because this was a trucker policy that's crazy and it was specifically designed as any person or organization in gauged in the business of transporting property by auto for hire all the vehicles listed were covered see it was it is it says accidental issue of liability insurance policy as s t s for coverage of all vehicles in service for s s t s whether these were released the provision regarding how bridge the gap of thirty days that in this case that specifically is limited to all of god's correct honest apple what is our theory is the same as in the progressive case that the policy is him figure it's because they put the lease trucks under the own to under the spaceport owners trucks so that someone looking at the policy would say i have leased trucks but apparently this insurance company is treating them as owns trucks and once a look at that then everything falls into place i'm going to think that i have the same coverage for restructures they differ on trucks because the insurance company is treating them reservation rights and did not file the detail before you get to the staff would you agree that if we interpret this policy as one that covered own bottles because except in very limited circumstances if you have to start looking at the policy and determine what it means they need to do a d j where they defended their reservation rights if there's no policy they can walk away that's where the basic office got through examples you can walk away if there's no policy you can guy accidental looks at the complaint and looks at the pot he's an employee when they said no but if he's an agent we have a coverage issue that's our point there's no there's no defense for that that's why you file the d j or defend under reservation rights the whole policy issue is no coverage that it doesn't matter if it didn't come forward right and if that's correct then that's occidentals position then the line of cases that the supreme court's always come down with murphy and elko and outboard marine and that i think almost everybody agrees so you have to do one or the other and the only exceptions are the three i gave to the court otherwise the rule that the supreme court laid down that you have to do with the jail or defend under  reservation rights is meaningless because this credit with ben b interpretating murphy and al gore to say if you don't do the right thing and it turns out you were right you're ok then there's no penalty says that a stop will doesn't create cover i gree i can't argue with that i know that which is there i would just ask the score and then i would always kind of read that too to mean that there's a distinction between finding no he enters then on behalf of defendant accidental your honor the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of accidental my closing counsel spent quite a bit of time trying to align the facts of this case with aggressive the first mr frewen and progressive and there were two critical distinction between the progressive case and the facts that issue here first it was seven and fifty now forty seven addressed coverage for least was forty six addresses coverage first for specifically described vehicles that were owned by the insured now that is the only to know what is your position now did you get this insurance cover least vehicles or was this a power state set out to cover old vehicles this policy was only set out to cover own vehicles it is clear from the declarations page of the policy that it only provides coverage for those vehicles listed under symbol or the sex symbol forty six is for scheduled autos own by insured but what about this whole idea that this policy was released vehicles and that diamond least all very clear and there's no ambiguity whatsoever in the occidental policy is that this policy only provided coverage for own cause well counsel just told us that the ambiguity is created by the fact we only have counsel's representations that these are least vehicles there is no credible summary judgment evidence in this record that diamond sought to ensure it's least where it allowed a driver to drive a vehicle on insured and then after that accident occurred it notified accidental that it sought to add the pall of the truck to the policy i thought that i thought that  truck was insured by west it yes it was that west also tonight coverage and a claim was filed against diamond and so at that point diamond realized west and i i believe that west denied coverage is other there's another lease you believe there was another least truck between diamond and da set right according to mr i been out been announced he's testimony  i mitsubishi truck and was it the one that was substituted for previously on vehicle no it's not all right so i'd like to come back to a point that i started with and that's the second critical distinction between the progressive case and the facts here the progressive court held that based on the fact that the insured their stock coverage for own and at least vehicles under for symbols forty six and forty seven and because the automatic insurance provision didn't address forty seven it found some sort of ambiguity there and it then looked at the automatic part of insurance profession let me  the i'm sorry the automatic insurance provision does not operate to create top the chair and here's why there are two conditions which must be met first diamond must acquire the  replace a previously owned and second diamond must notify accidental within thirty days here it is undisputed that diamond did not notify occidental within thirty bag and diamond didn't to buy or the vehicle until september seventh so they have thirty days well which to know by the united states supreme court has defined the term acquire to mean to come into control or possession of something that is the huddle son versus you united states for fifteen us four i'm sorry eight fourteen us nine hundred seventy four webster likewise defines acquire to mean to get something to come to have something here we have summary judgment evidence that diamond used this truck from da ass as early as august one two thousand and five for customers wouldn't that be the first thing that they would make sure that their actions would cover absolutely and in general doesn't they have to pay a premium for that yes they would and an insured has a duty to read and know the terms of their policy this is there were no world policy diamond knew exactly what it was purchasing it was only paying premium for own vehicles and there is no evidence in this we know that was legal fees if it is the least vehicle so it does not fall within the coverage under the policy it is not a covered auto designed to cover own vehicles nor could they dispute the fact that the on the diamond side to add the policy after the accident occurred is the language of the policy this one as opposed to the policy in the progressive case already decided is there any language in this policy that talks about how you're least autos that but they chose not to insure their view that they chose not to see that coverage but even if you know the opposition is that this is not a covered auto because it wasn't home but it's also not a covered auto because because it was a big you know the reason why the progressive case howled that the automatic insurance provision applied is because their they first used the vehicle in question i may twelfth two thousand and four and they notified progressive on joe i'm june eighth that was with in a thirty day window here after dining to do fact finding started using this truck on august first  provision that says you have to own it you have to own that and that's our first arc our our our first argument is they didn't own it the second argument is that they fail to comply with the policies conditions i mean illinois courts routinely require insurance to comply with conditions proceed and in order for covers the other argument that we raised in the core polow is that the no one loss doctrine  prevents or operates to bar coverage for the plaintiffs claims i mean inherent in every insurance policy is is a four to heap and at the last be unknown and here and the last was known it was after this fatal accident that diamond realized whoops we failed to have coverage for this vehicle so that's a little too late and as a matter of public policy we do not allow insurers to seek insurance coverage for losses which have already occurred now with respect to the a sample argument i believe in all my life is very clear that the  finding is is only warranted once there has been a judicial determination that an insurer has breached its studio to defend and that is that language is very clearly out here are circuit court breach lastly it wasn't addressed by counsel in his opening argument but it's in our briefs and now that there could be no waiver for occidental to raise this issue of that the audit wasn't covered i have one last question to you does this policy the the one in front of us does this you have in it the following are in sherrod's you for any covered auto and then it goes down the owner or anyone else from whom you hire or borrow a covered auto that is not a trailer while the coverage auto is being used loosely in your business as a trucker and is being used pursuant to operating rights granted to you by a public authority yes i grounds an accident reserve its right to raise additional grounds of the worker's comp exclusion in the policy as well as the employee exclusion here regardless of the causes of action the allegations of the complaint were that diamond owed a duty to provide mr barron ascii workers compensation insurance that diamond breached that duty because it didn't we brief that in the court below the circuit court all of those causes of action contain the same allegations the one that you know diamond was an employer subject to bail and i workers compensation and what about the agent language how is that how does it take him out of policy well th e illinois workers compensation act covers employees what does agency it in it covers employees but the act defines employee to include any person in the service of another under any contract of hire either express or implied oral or written a twenty i'll see s three zero five one p two only courts have have long held that you cannot convert a general liability an agent is iffy if he isn't working for time why isn't he covered but he was acting for a time and he was hauling freight for jack and that is when the explosion and the employee solution and that the court did find a question of fact as to whether he was employed which precluded any employee exclusion say the employee exclusion says that any any person acting within any any employee acting on either within the course of their employment duties or while while they're in the employ of all right so that's your your alternate is that it's he would be out under the workers co pollution or he's out because of this employee definition that is correct and the circuit court found that he was that there was no coverage under the worker's comp explosion and  point is simply that the trial court found there's a question the fact as to whether this judgment was a ploy or not so that whole part of the defense the whole part of their argument that they did not have to cover him and that they disappeared so we're we're  back to the question of whether or not this policy is ambiguous because somebody accidentally put these trucks his own trucks and there is no place in a policy that lets you then reason further that makes the