our argument in a nutshell is as follows section twelve of the uniform arbitration act provides that an arbitration work can be vacated if the arbitrators exceeded their powers now in this case article twenty four of the arbitration of the treaty provided for arbitration of disputes between the parties the dispute that was presented to the arbitrators was was america sure entitle attorneys fees under section one fifty five of the illinois insurance code that was a request that was briefed by both american and global to the arbitrator's the arbitrator's did award attorneys fees however the arbitrator's awarded fees arbitrator's reached a decision and made an award on the basis the parties did not request the arbitrators exceeded their powers and for that reason the award of fees should be  demonstrated by the quicken rights issue in which an arbitration panel awarded attorneys fees on a statutory basis the plaintiffs did not request and in that case the first district reversed the circuit court and overturned the arbitration award for the simple reason that the arbitrators exceeded their powers because the arbitrators made an award on a basis that the parties did not re that in a nutshell his argument as to why this award in their their jobs their practice section one fifty five is an statutory remedy under only walk for unreasonable and vexatious delay we don't believe section one fifty five applies but that's another issue the breach of the duty  of reasons section one fifty five does not apply to a reinsurance dispute a reinsurance relationship between a seating insurer such as america and a reinsurer such as global is a different type of relationship from for example what i have with farmers from my homeowners insurance with a policy holder and insure reinsurance in a reinsurance relationship lobel does not have any relationship with the ultimate policy and a reinsurance contract and the only supreme court's help those are not the same those are different there they're different relationships and section one fifty five right doesn't make any mention every insurance it talks about an action against a company where there is an issue the liability of a company and a policy or policies of insurance which is not the same as a reinsurance relationship and as as far as the state my decision goes i realize in that case this court gave one insurer section one fifty five relief against another insurer i don't believe that case is controlling here for two reasons first of all in that case the court will add on and sign a clause in the policy between the insured and statewide twelve state wide to step into its insured shows also present insurance case i think that makes it different i realize there is a dissent by justice r c m i think his rationale in that dissent or he talks about the reason for one fifty five this protecting policyholders for their ultimate right under an insurance relationship the duty to defend that's what it's designed to protect and we that duty is not at all involved here a reinsurance relationship is not involved any type of duty to defend it's an  which just calls for the reinsurer to pay but was that the seeding company had made i'd like to go back if i could to talk about why section one fifty five re industry reinsurance practice so why would use the arbitrators or not beyond the scope of this i think we have to look at the language of the word your damages and exemplary damages and then the son will see i don't know ten months later you use the language attorneys fees without using section one fifty five i think it's a year and nine months later before you actually present the brief to the average patient panel regarding section one fifty five and that is true and that was the nature of the the demand was made but there was no there was no proceeding by which to ask  seize until ten months later but the organizational meeting there was no communication no written demand the position statement an organizational meeting is the first opportunity we have to present our case we have my point with that in this surely when you majored in november is when there was a discussion regarding attorneys fees and the response from the global that you want to title two attorneys fees and then another year or so passed and that's with the one fifty five claim came into play and that's true and i just want to make sure the courts for that it wasn't a delay on our part it was the first opportunity we had present written materials and asked them and the pre hearing three was the time that we were able to ask for section one  occurred that's a memorial as you'll see the transcript in the record with the umpire on the thursday before the hearing and that's how a conference the umpire specifically directed the global to fees present evidence on church attorney's fees and present arguments on attorneys we participated in a week long hearing there were eight witnesses and it was there was multiple opportunities to address each of the witnesses including our witness that no claim here by global that they didn't have a full and fair hearing and opportunities to challenge attorney's fees before the the judges that were selected by the parties to deal with the issue and they never once came to court under construe our nation awards to be valid if an award is within the submission which it is and contains the honest decision of the arbitrator after a full and fair hearing it will not be set aside for error of law or fact the arbitration may reach different conclusions on an issue of fact or law but it is only when those conclusions are not even possible in the context of the contract or the loft that an arb this panel for insurance experts and were given a unanimous decision which means the party arbitrator that was global's party or later joined that decision that board should not be disturbed the language of the war was for three percent interest there's just no citation to a contract having no citation to a particular a lot does not render the award invalid and the third reason is that section one fifty five provides a basis in illinois law for  as long as it is part of the agreement with the parties or authorized by law and in fact these parties dead agree to proceed that way and impasse rally it was a statutory uninsured motorist also simultaneously pending in london and when the london reinsurer asked for this court to this mess the pending case in illinois one of the factors that and the illinois court and center was whether or not combined would be have access to full and complete relief in london and there was determined by the court that section one fifty five of the insurance code intended to penalize fixations delay or rejection of legitimate claims by insurance companies would be might not be we did find one thing very interesting and that is that decision awards fees for an appeal and at this point the station and reasonable delay that america for has faced we would ask for such an award  i'd like to address three points if i run out of time but someone let me know there is going to mention made here that the level did not reply to the affirmative defenses so there's some way were involved i would like to address procedurally how th have a motion as well so are time to apply hanuman right and there are cases which say there's no point in engaging in a futile lack litigated all these defenses in the summary judgment motion and i so for this reason i don't think level never said the arbitrator's could not mentioned that the award of fees was appropriate under the practice of reinsurance the treaty provides that the parties would agree that the law on the lot of law was illinois illinois does not recognize an award of fees under a practice of reinsurance it is simply not a sufficient basis under only law to support in award of fees i have nothing further in the us the