motion and fair to look at some very important and relevant facts and find genuine issues of relevant fact lorch are also here by not considering as facts and evidence the jury spent for its twenty third two thousand and ten verdict in a lot of vision in favor of motion that you from your understanding of their case that would have knocked your case out had happened had there been a finding of fact by the jury in that other case that cox said that the captain was involved in the assault that he received and there was nothing contrary to that assertion and i thought the trial judge says sounds like rely on that we have to rely on what the trial judge had before it on the summary judgment motions and i think if the case was soley against that head to get driver we were trying to obtain my duty and then if i uncover it for me c i i think those would be the logical arguments that were it's the vehicle was used in a manner that this is a taxi my client got into a taxi here because he expected be driven home safely improperly as as we all are the issue was the hair was used in a way to get him into the negligently operated through various aspects turning down a wrong street perhaps parking where you're not supposed to park things of that nature then there was all sort of things don't happen out of pure negligence i mean nobody turns down the wrong with street and nobody parks in the alley out of negligence it seems planned and it could be but another perception could be that it's not planned and that there would be instances where negligent operation of a vehicle could put you as a passenger in a very dangerous situation where you could be harmed or whatever whatever what if he kept driver's refusal to acknowledge mr cox's words to him that hey turn down the wrong way street and what are you doing here parking in this alley and cases cited by a c i i admit this is a very unique fact pattern i think ambiguity exists in the policy there is no exclusion for netizen trust or there's no definition for use resulting from and i think these factors were misconstrued by clearly indicate that mr williams knew or should have known that his friend was up to no good let's let's let's let's take your example right now you just gave us a person is given the car keys that shouldn't receive him but he would depend on that case in trust or what did he know so negligent entrustment by itself doesn't necessarily lead to indemnification or coverage it turns on the facts and air force it does and that's why i was going back to whether that fact of whether or not the cab driver was involved in the assault really decide ok i get i i do not think it does in this case i'm sure you don't want even if it is you can argue that it still has a world whether or not is you have a second point yes or where the insured driver perpetrates an assault against his passenger the connection to the use of an auto as an auto is too remote to entrap his victim and commit his crime the court and state frankly file found that that use is not consistent with the inherent nature of an auto as an auto he used the car as a weapon and when a perpetrator uses the car as a weapon is outside the risks inherent in our liability policy let me ask you this question because you described the incident then you make clear that mr hinckley was involved but you talked about it inside the cab or outside and the court said no because it's the alter cation it makes a difference when he pulls out a weapon and stabs his passenger he's not using the auto as an auto so when you're when you use that that phrase use of an auto really the focus is on use as opposed to auto because he obviously an auto was involved but it's whether or not that the use was what would have been anticipated under the insurance correct your honor and i think  points out that automobiles are used in many crimes the court even said this bank robberies for example you probably couldn't have many think robberies without an auto sheet to affect the escape that's mean the auto is is the bank robbery is is a finding of criminal conduct and that would be on the part of his team flee what do we have in this case and whether or not that what we have in this case satisfies that showing i think to sustain the summary judgment i think this court has to find that there's no genuine dispute the kings of course is a crime and i think that starts with he got out of the cab beat them and i think all the other facts are consistent with that underbody testimony licensee complied with the statute that required them to go out there policy which is what they procured for it and it would be remarkable indeed if the city of chicago require coverage beyond what and insurance policy already provide it would be remarkable for not only the insurers that provide those policies but also for all the belling holders as well be a significant departure from from the why is everybody has to be the only other thing that would say is if if if  program make that kind of finding assuming yet that in this case where you had mr williams who an authorized against the city rules ever he did everything wrong in terms of subleasing this kingsley let's say and in this case for him to argue that hale hacking somehow breached the contract to help in the face of what he did and created risks that hale hacking was in absolutely the negligent entrustment of the auto i was just thrown in there for the purpose of trying to get coverage and it was just it wasn't even discussed by what was all about the hunting knife throwing rocks so that the principal the principal articulated  let's say mr williams was the one who was driving a cab at the time and mr williams engaged in the criminal conduct no coverage right and so why should there be why should there be coverage if mr if if the person