p the crux of this appeal today which your honors i'm sure are aware is really the remnants of a massive insurance fraud that was perpetrated actually in this district against my clients and many others who were large purchasers of insurance the fraudster involved j r s so and michael ward are now incarcerated what what that leaves as a cause of action that we filed as the purchaser of this insurance against the chain of brokers in this case and i say this most respectfully i think the district court simply got it wrong of the cases i've had it in my career i think this case clearly warranted the right to present the case to a jury there are six or seven major categories of fact issues that really must have been decided and needed to be decided before any kind of decision could be rendered in this case of the district court granted to summary judgments two complex insurance placements that were very interrelated the purchasers of the insurance my clients were basically the same parties and both one was referenced as the w c p p placement the other is referenced as the mayan placement of the w c c p placement involved three point five billion dollars of real estate both tenet and commercial insurance on that involving four hundred million dollars of insurance and five and a half million dollars of premium the mayan involved dozens of properties involving a premium of close to three hundred thousand dollars both of these policies were placed really through a chain and and actually accurately reflects norman spencer's role here i didn't see that in ca i g went to norman spencer and said find some insurance for us norman spencer it seemed had a role as a service or more to a so that it wasn't a chain of sub brokers but some sort of service or arrangement that norman spencer had with what you describe as of roger mr ward and his company i actually think your honor that norman spencer served multiple roles i think norman spencer certainly was going to at the end be a service sir and issuer of the insurance that was in place that was being requested here in fact in the mayan placement norman spencer in fact issued that one's a little different replacing mulberry with norman spencer i think norma spencer's role if you read the memorandum of understanding which is in the record that really lays sets forth all of the functions and role that norman spencer was going to play it was much more than just a service or they were going to evaluate risk they were going to issue policies we think they were also going to participate in the placement of the policy which is an amorphous term of course you're dealing with at the end of the day someone who is perpetrating a fraud the ultimate issue of the policies whether norman spencer's role was much greater but either way i think norman spencer still had the duty and certainly in this case were was a sub agent sessions so what really happened here and i think sort of the biggest issue that that that frustrated i think the district court and its analysis was that the first issue that sort of dominates is was there a sub agency relationship entered into your honor's question actually is a is a i think a very insightful question dealing with the nature and scope of a sub agency  clearly my client's went to mc rescue as insurance broker they very clearly went to and see a i g who they very clearly went to norman spencer well that's a part of that is so very clearly the first two steps are very clear but th third one not so clear well there's no doubt based on the record that norman spencer was was asked by and c a g to participate with respect to the j r s o insurance program yeah but that's the  nature of the participation is the right i think it would be helpful and i certainly will address in rebuttal of bring it up to look at the memorandum of understanding that was at or actually entered into between norman spencer as well as j r s l that really define the roles that norman spencer was going to play but but either way i think norma spencer was was a key player in the chain of brokers and participants in this placement i mean it's undeniable that norman spencer ultimately would have placed would have issued the policy in question just as norman spencer issued the policy on mine that that first of all we have no doubt that some point in a two month period during the months of november and december of two thousand and eleven that n c a i g that norman spencer was in fact to use pelleas term cut out of the w c p p placed and i think that's what you're referencing in mr littlejohn's comments but there's also no doubt fact i think it's undisputed that there were multiple discussions and meetings and documents prepared by and between n c a a i g norman spencer and j r s ul during the months of november in december relative to the placement and norma spencer's participation in any way nothing you deem relevant to participate in this placement and for a period of of at least six to seven weeks norma spencer was actively involved in this transaction they were actively involved in negotiating with n c a a i g the terms of what their gauge would be the commission that they would receive and i suspect the commission it would be both for brokerage activities as well as issuance activities and other insurance related activities but clearly by the end of december we think late december i don't disagree with what mr littlejohn said norma spencer was in fact cut out of the deal but being cut out to me implies that they work for some period of time involved in the deal and it's really interesting because during the time that norman spencer was involved in the deal they were not only negotiating on their behalf to be involved in the w c p p placement which was the big mother load placement that was involved here of the entire janice r j j r s o placement w c p p was the biggest of the whole patch and was a multiple package of places at the same time that that norma spencer was involved there they were doing two other things of real importance one they were had agreed pursuant to the memorandum of understanding that i reference to clean up for n c a a i g and for j r s of sixty four different policies and actually issued the policies issue endorsements except our one of those of course was my in management which my client and g s a was the program administrator for in the same capacity as they served for w c p p they were in fact  sure a one of the insurance so that was one thing that norman spencer was doing enormous spencer in fact actually issued the policy which turned out to be fraudulent and in late december added the tional properties that mine management needed added to the property i think district court got that wrong when he said that that norman spencer didn't issue a policy it was policies that previously been bound the policies hadn't been valid because they were fraudulent so how could they have been bound the third thing of great importance that norman spencer was doing during the same time period in november and december was they were investigating michael ward and they were investigating j that in two thousand and seven the apartment of insurance of illinois had entered a liquidation order and filed suit against jr so freezing and shutting down their business seizing their assets to back us on the program and taken away any licensing that mr ward had which already had expired they also discovered the same type or november in summer they also discovered that the reinsurance agreement that mr ward claims supported the insurance that was being proposed here was was at best highly suspicious at worst fraudulent norma spencer received copies of reassurance of rooms that were unsigned that had inconsistency is at different dates on dec cetera norman spencer do with respect to this information did they ever tell anybody in the chain they kept to themselves didn't warn any of the producers in the chain except i wrote a story on it of the milieu of that passage in the record but i'm wondering what about the impact of the fact that i believe it was i think it's brian norman the younger he was either satisfied or like as i put it that way he adequate there was some confusion about the documents from swiss re and the worker's comp problem from illinois that was being worked out and so he didn't really think there was anything wrong about it and as as your honor knows it his court knows there was communication between mr littlejohn and mr norman concerning the investigation of ward and in fact you're correct mr littlejohn was in fact satisfied at least the appear to be satisfied with what he had heard which of course works uses that turned out to be of their duty under the a y h case to send out the warning in a way it's the situation was identical you had a third level broker as part of a large insurance chain just like this whatever role norman spencer pla and information that one of the brokers had was about the fifty poor financial condition of the geneva syndicate of the illinois insurance exchange which of course ultimately crater all the broker had to do was court in a court place placement which they knew full well they were involved in in some capacity this whole fraud i think at least with wrecked my clients would have been avoided they chose to be quiet about it and i pinned it in my view and based on what i see the record is there's no doubt that that if there is a duty from norman spencer we believe there is enormous spencer breached that duty and really the consequences of that breach and their actions were recently foreseeable to lead to the great jury should be able to look at what norman spencer's role is not a court looking at summary judgment paper suppose a court should be able to look the jury should be able to look at sub agency a jury should be able to look at whether a request was made for insurance these are the type of issues i think then g s a against norman spencer is brought pursuant to the illinois insurance producer liability at five slash two dish two two zero one and that at which is the basis upon which the complaint is is framed imposes a duty upon an insurance producer to procure coverage in response to a specific request from an insured the specific word is not in the statute the specific word comes from the case of the purpose which is a supreme court decision turned that was issued in march of this past year twenty fifteen and  purchase the court determined that the request to the producer mutt must be specific it can't be vague like get me the best insurance or get me good insurance and the important thing i think about affirmed and approved the prior public court decision in the car leni case and in the carlina case the broker or the insurance producer in the insured had a twenty year relationship and the the owner of the store melrose sundries asked mr carley need to commit and have a meeting with them to get insurance for their new business they'd started a new store and mr carlin he sat with them and discussed all of their insurance needs and he procured their insurance of a package policy it did not contain workers compensation insurance which is a statutorily mandated coverage in the depositions it was concluded that the insured never made a request for worker's compensation coverage there was never a discussion and never an agreement for mr karr leader procure workers compensation coverage so when an employee was injured and there was no coverage they sued mr carlin said you've been doing this for twenty years you know the coverages that we need you didn't get us workers comp and the appellate courts that mr curly response was no one ever asked me to get worker's capitan discuss workers gap and you tell courts that in the absence of a request from the insured for coverage there is no duty the sca purpose supreme court in in approving that decision said the request has to norman spencer with a request that norman spencer procure the coverage it's not just the f b i affidavit when mr littlejohn says norman spencer is not a part of this program it is throughout the process and in in the period of time that mr meckler says norman spencer was allegedly working for of the program norman spencer never was involved in the w c p p placement the if you follow the money and it's usually not a bad way to go the money went from n g s a one million three hundred seventy seven thousand to mc wrist which carved out its two and a half percent commission and sent the balance to j c a i g which carved out its four or five percent commission and went to josel now penny if of that money it didn't flow through norman spencer's accounts it wasn't sent to norman spencer to send to  that arose with your claims your claim service was going to be the claims administrator for the program and a woman by the name of jill brick house said that norma spencer got a claim and she couldn't identify who can't littlejohn and says we don't know any about this and he sends an email to your claims say norman spencer is not involved in w c p p norman spencer is only involved in an essay and is deposition kept littlejohn said that going forward after they had their media eleven eleven norman spencer would be involved in all of the jerks so placements all the placements of business into just so with the exception of w c p p the argument that well if you're cut out of the of participation in a program you must have been at some point in we were negotiating our commission norman spencer was negotiating its commission in order to get itself into that program and it's absolutely contrary to the record the only reference to any discussion about reduced commission is in one page of the deposition of norman spencer where he said can't littlejohn asked him if he would consider reducing his commission and there is no response to that there's not another sense there's none of the follow up there's no discussion about what his condition was going to be there's no discussion about what it would be reduced to and the record is clear that can't littlejohn wanted norman spencer in the program and they they asked michael work to have to have a normal spencer in the program norman spencer's a very well regarded national agency and get little john was fairly inexperience but michael ward said no michael ward is to fraudster he was committing a fraud he's got this five point two million dollar premium that he thinks he's going to collect coming his way he doesn't want to give two percent four percent six percent to norman spencer now with regard to the investigation issue and if i may on the on the norman spencer role mr meckler points us to the memorandum of understanding for an accurate articulation of what norman spencer role was or was proposed to be we agree with that is that where we can go look where to find it were no i don't agree with that i of from the notes i took at our meeting on friday and it proposes and i will do this this this this and this as the program administrator for jessa let me have the benefit of your comments suggestions whatever we never got a response to that if that document as a memorandum of understanding is a draft based on the notes that were taken at the meeting it is sent to is sent to michael ward as a draft with the request that he get that document his input and that that they would such at some point come to an understanding and maybe actually sign an agreement that never happens and so it's  sent norman spencer sent that memorandum to michael ward he never got a response same thing with the commission can't littlejohn said would you consider reducing your commission so i can get you into this program there was no further discussion and get little policy for lack of a better word was bound on october one it was invoiced an actual were for two hundred eighty two thousand and some odd dollars was indorsed in g s a and it was paid on november third that's all prior to norman spencer becoming involved now norman spencer efter eleven eleven had an oral agreement with mike ward to serve as the program administrator as of eleven eleven resolved that's what kent littlejohn reported back to norman spencer who moved on from that now we get to the issue of the documents from swiss re understand where norman spencer was after eleven eleven he is setting  to be a program administrator for what he believed was a legitimate insurance program and he has got to build up the documentation to to run that program part of the documentation is kept the reinsurance agreement which he asked for  n and said i just got a call from an attorney at swiss re questioning the legitimacy of a policy not one of ours is this thing legit that's his question jet is told to call brian norman brian norm is the program administrator brian norman calls steve o'hearn and he still has told us before look i just started to look into this thing i'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with any fraud i'm just starting to look into this thing and then he wasn't getting any response from michael ward and he wasn't getting any response from michael ward and people were getting nervous and january eighteenth nine days after the generous received a phone call and g s a and mike skinner send one point three million dollars or almost one point four million dollars to mc risk which keeps that goes up too and they take their piece of it it goes to gerson and mark were never going through norman spencer now to suggest that we hid information from the rest of the brokers in the chain is is a frivolous statement it's interesting to me that the see risk and ca i g knew that there were just a question an unresolved question with regard to the swiss re involved and that it had been resolved as of january eighteenth and they never shared that did norman spencer have enough information it's out of the chain but i understand your position is out of the chain with regard to the c p p but it was issuing the policy to mine management did it not have enough information  there is the record will show the the information from from michael ward with regard to the swiss re policies came right after that short time after that is judge gettleman said in his opinion if my own management was a plaintive my own management may well have a suit against norman spencer because norman spencer's duties are owed to all say is every producer in the chain was involved in the placement of the coverage and the third person in the chain and every one of those was the person who issued the policy not a situation here where norma spencer is not  honour's let me quickly respond to a number of points you raised norman spencer the mayan deal was placed by norman spencer on december six norma spencer learned of the order of conservation on november eighth right before that norman spencer learned of the suspicious reinsurance agreement on eleven sixteen over sixteen so we're clear there is no doubt that norman spencer issued a policy whether or not that was a ministerial act or substantive act they issued a policy there's also no doubt norman spencer received twenty five thousand dollars by norman spencer norman spencer was paid a fee for that and putting aside the c c p for a moment had norman spencer simply undertaken its duty to warn as the a y h case just and as old as i want  to and i'm holding your overtime your source are all jacks my colleagues here but i understand your explanation is that m g s a suffered damages as a result of that placement of the mine management program because you basically covered the loss and we also paid the new premium plus the overage on the night when the the issue of the weather and g s a qualifies as an insured under the illinois statute i don't think of any doubt that they that they the policies went when the when michael ward issued the fraudulent policy to w c p p the insured was w c p p it wasn't the six hundred property owners right and likewise the mine management ultimately was issued through w c p p exactly the same thing the policy that was issued by norman spencer actually said to mine management like everything else in the policy was wrong policy itself was fraudulent but ultimately what happened was replacement coverage was found by for w c c p and my and they were all in one policy and the insured was w c p p so in none of these placements on the record is clear on this in one of these placements was and g s a acting as a producer they were in fact a eight they were the program manager and in fact insured and they had clients who came to them who who participated in liability and i'll read it and insurance producer shark size ordinary care in reviewing procuring binding and placing i have no doubt on this record that whatever role enormous spencer was playing with respect to w c p p they fit within that statute because they were binding the policy and i did pull out the memory and understand what you mean by binding they actually norman spencer your honor actually back on the policy they issued a policy to mine management and in fact in the memorandum of understanding which is part of the record which i have in front of me that was one of the specific duties that norman spencer agreed to do at least in so far as the memorandum of understanding provides so i would go for i would frankly think that that all of their activities fit well within that statute and i guess the last thing i would say in an elf with if you're to have a sit down is that that whether or not a member and of understand was ever agreed to or not sounds like a very significant fact issue as well and listening to my opponent speak about this these are issues i think that really do need to go to a jury as do all the other issues