recorded as a company engaged in kind of reflect what that policy came along with a additional insurance or smith which extends coverage when required by written construction contract qualifies as an additional insured under the pekin policy the law generally is pretty pretty broad that duty as it certainly is and if the allegations of the only complaint do trigger the policy then pekin would have a duty to defend however in this case the issue is whether or not tor actually qualifies as an additional insurance that policy so i'm not exactly sure if the same general duty to defend principles would apply to this case see before getting not limit the grant coverage to tovar and the reason for that if the court called it basically called section one of the additional insured and grossman title and otherwise termed it as a that would be used as a marketing device and that could not be used to limit the type of contract so under the trial court's interpretation any contract could qualify to use a ridiculous example for the manufacture of imagination to say that snow removal is not a contract for construction which typically means to build the racks etc i pay just seventeen and eighteen of our brief by slight sight to a slew of cases that actually are that many cases on one northern district case the first one being that the the older case being a new t versus john deere insurance written by justice wilson who without setting any cases says persuaded that those definitions may be properly imposed here the language used an ambiguous he conveys a contours the exclusion in this court mean that properly read into the language that language and the additional terms saying how for the well known proposition we can't read d so now we have a four reported cases and one unreported case saying headings don't count why should we go with that i'd like to address nudie first as i think that's the strongest case in illinois justice will send specifically said that the title conflicted with the provision of some paragraph three under false pretense coverage and that government seizure of autos had nothing to do with false pretense covers so to apply the term false pretense cover false pretenses forgive me what conflicts with sub her graph three hence it should apply to either superb graph one or two and that's why you read the term consistent with state farm one hundred six bill second three six up bar it's actually and i'll concede in barth that's a true title i don't think that what we're dealing with here is the truth but in bars the title said fraud or misrepresentation and the jury's verdict there actually found that the person who conveyed error forgive me but the jury found that the elements of misrepresentation were satisfied and i believe that the destructive or their makes that case distinguishable the supreme court didn't have to apply common law elements for that case the jury already found misrepresentation  find that the endorsement was ambiguous saying that the title to endorsement even if considered did not mean that it could apply to railroad cars it just it was the ambiguous as to whether or not the cars that were being but i have to go my own goes my way is daniel's first patent corgan illinois bell telephone company and people versus warren which if your honour's inclined to accept the premise that construction appears only in the title of the endorsement of those cases i'm struck that court should actually consider well those are statutory interpretation cases but they do say that title should be construed in conjunction with the provisions that they proceed in order to elucidate the meaning of the of the provisions that the title proceeds and your argument would be that why would we interpret statutes differently than we interpret the policy at all i understand the role of construction are different but i do believe that those those cases are instructive and i also understand the court agreement whereby one party one party transferred the risk to another who was better capable of bearing the expense of ensuring that its work was performed in a reasonably safe manner this is simply contractual language k mart and follow it so i work mrs holland in the underlying case a personal injuries and filed a lawsuit so i subsequently tendered its case to pekin pursuant to the contractual additional and assure constitutes a written contract hypothetically i suppose you could extend that to any written contract in the world however done would be does perform a finite amount of services they are a construction company who contract it for snow removal activity prior to power the policy being issued by key can in other words that that contract was in effect of the policy was written so it's somewhat confusing for people to assert that wrote a policy that could extend to any written contract in the world but it but not a contract that was in existence at the time the policy was written beyond the plain language of the policy itself i think it's counsel  pekin undertakes to draw a distinction between a quote true title and a title that should be incorporated to every section that succeeds the title that's simply a red herring that has no legal or relevant basis before the opportunity itself to limit had it chosen to do so i don't think it's a stretch to suggest that he can could have just simply and sort of the word construction in the written construction contract and the actual body of a divorce meant and then none of us would be here today contract person construction activity and that contract included an additional should of course with a surely would be included under the under the policy but it's just not specifically limited to construction contracts by virtue of the heading so the t itle in the following text of the operative policy language are entirely consistent with one another it's just that the policy which is not limited by the heading well in this particular case when you try to read that title and i would agree with that but if you did incorporate that heading into the policy itself it would become ambiguous which is again something that he can chose not to do with a draft of the policy and furthermore the case law clearly instructs that the title was simply not policy which i think the cases that council cited that he's relying on specifically the daniels case within that case is the illinois bell case  subsequently represent to the court that titles are not catch lines i'm sitting right beside it the type simply is not policy language based on barth and duty it simply is not to be rest into the rest of the policy language the policy language is what it says it is which is any written contract and the contract at issue here falls within that language but again reading and reading the title into the policy which itself is not necessarily beyond the scope of of what's included in the policy which itself because it surely does apply to construction contracts as well so that the two are are not mutual exclusive finally i think with the sperry rail case again the court did endeavor to explicitly state that titles cannot modify the language following the title and of course that's that's the position that tovar would adopt here and i think that that case will serve as some persuasive authority for the court  and finally i'd like to make a point that if you can notice that the business description for the policy is concrete flatwork however i get i would stress that consistent with a long line of cases from this court in the illinois supreme court it would be if he can truly decided to limit coverage in a fashion that it suggests today it would have been a raja call for it not to have so expressed in the you want to address a few things your honour's first of all the title to the endorsement is contractors additional insured slash waiver of rights or recovery extension endorsement i don't think that the additional insurance or some capacity have to titles i agree with counsel when he says that the word construction is not inconsistent with the rest of the additional insured or small and should be given me well and should not be right out of the country illinois delf although it cautions