1 NOTI CE Decisi on fi led 07 /25/ 08. The textof this dec ision m ay be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petit ion for Re hea ri ng o r th e dispos it ion of

the s ame. NO. 5-07-0061 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

________________________________________________________________________ STEVE N CLAYTON, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Pla intiff-A ppe llant , ) B on d C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 03-L-22 ) MILLERS FIRST I

NSURANCE ) COM PANIES, ) Honorable ) John Kn ight, De fen dan t-A ppe llee. ) Jud ge, p resid ing

.

________________________________________________________________________ JUS TIC E G OL DE NH ER SH delive red the opin ion o f the c ourt: Plaintiff, Stev en C layton, filed a dec laratory jud gm ent ac tion ag ainst de fend ant, Millers First

Insuranc e Companies, in the circuit court of Bond County . The court granted
a parti al summary

jud gm ent to de fendant. On appeal, pl ainti ff rais es thes e issue s: (1) whetherthe trial co urt erred by ruling in a summary j udgment that plaintiff was not a family member under the insurance pol icy and (2) whether

defendant acted in bad faith by r efusing to pay . We vacate and r emand. FACTS On Au gust 2 5, 200 2, plain tiff, a m inor, w as a p assen ger in a car thatwa s invo lved in
a one- car ac ciden t. The driver was also a minor . Plaintiff file d suit against the minor

driver and th e own erof t

he v ehi cl e, th e mi nor 's f ather. The driver 's f

ather s ubsequently fi led for ba nk ru pt cy, and plai ntiff file d an amended co mp lain t naming the driver' s mother as a defend ant. T he d rive r's mo ther sub seq uen tly filed for ban kru ptcy. On the dat e of the acci dent, plaintiff l ived with hi s mot her, CarolClayton, and her then-fi ancé, Nick Gregory . Gregory submitt ed an affidavi t cla iming thatplaintiff has l ived2

athis residence sinc e 1998 and that he has "nurt ured , care d [for], and provided f or the support and upbringing of" p laintiff. G rego ry stated tha t his relatio nship with plaintiff was of a "parent al nat

ure" and t

hat it was his unders tanding t hat pla inti ff was covered by the insura nce policy . Gregory had automobil e insur ance with uni nsured-mot orist cover ag e throu gh d efen dant. On June 7, 2004, plaintiff not ifie d defendant t hat he was seeking compensation under the uninsured-motoristcov erag e of the p olicy is sue d to Gr ego ry. Defendant responde d that plain tiff w as n ot in sure d un der the G reg ory po licy. On July 29, 2005, pl ainti ff amended his compl aint to add defendant. In the amended
com plaint, plaintiff asked for a declaratory judg men t that de fend ant is obligated to provi de uninsured-motoristcoverage for plaintiff. Plaintiff al so all eged that defendantacted in bad faith in decli ning coverage. Plaintiff al leged that at the time of the acci dent he was a minor
c hild resi ding with Gregor y and " was financi ally

dependent upon t

he insur ed for care and sup por t." Plaintiff claimed coverage as a family member under the uninsured-motorist pr ov isi on s o f th e G re go ry p ol icy. Defendant file d a motion fo r a summ ary judgmen t on the cou nts for a dec laratory judgment (735 I LCS 5/2-1005 (West 2004)) . Plaintiff file d a response and a cross -motion fora sum mary jud gm ent. The trial cou rt gran ted a su mm ary judgm ent to d efen dant. Plaintiff app eals

. AN AL YS IS A sum mary jud gm ent is ap prop riate on ly wher e "the p leadin gs, depos iti ons, and admissi ons on file , toge ther wit h the affi davits , if a

ny, show that t

here is no genuine i ssue as to any materi al fact

and that the mo vin g pa rty is en titled to a ju dgm ent a s a m atter of la w." 735 ILC S 5/2 -100 5(c) (W est 20 04). T he rev ie w o f an entry of a summary judgment is de
novo . Outboard Marin e Corp. v. Libert y Mutual Insurance Co. , 154 Il l. 2d 90, 102, 6073

N.E.2d 1204, 1209 (1992) . Speci fical ly , the constr uctionof an insur ance poli cy i s a quest ion of law, which i s revi ewed de novo

. Cen tral Illinois Light Co. v. Home Insurance Co. , 213 Ill. 2d 141, 153, 82 1 N.E .2d 206, 21 3 (2004 ). The resolution of t

his matt er cal ls for

the applic at ion of well -worn princ iples of contrac t constr

uction. The insura nce p olicy is a contra ct and i s subjec t to t he same rule s that govern the in terp retat ion of c ont racts
. Hobbs v. Hartford InsuranceCo. of the Midwest , 214 Ill. 2d 11, 17, 823 N. E.2d 561, 564 (2005 ). The prima ry objectiv e of th e cou rt is to det e rmine and give effec t to t he inte nt of the parti es as expr essed i n the language of the po lic y. Hobbs , 214 Il l. 2d at 17, 823 N.E. 2d at 564. On review, the court i s to ass ume that every pro visio n in the c ont ract s erv es a pur pos e. Cen tral Illi nois Ligh t Co. , 213 Il l. 2d at 153, 821 N.E.2d at 21 3. Th e polic y i s to be cons trued as a whole, t aking into account t he ty pe of insur ance provi ded, the na ture of the risk s invo lved, a nd th e ove rall purpose ser ved bythe con tract
. Amer ic an S ta tes I ns ur anc e Co . v . K

oloms , 177 Il l. 2d 473, 479, 687 N.E.2d 72, 7 5 (1 997 ). The pertine nt qu estion in the un derlyin g dec la rator y j udgment acti on is whether plaintiff qu ali fie s a s a "f

am ily m em be r" u nd er th e te rm s o f th e G re go ry p ol icy. Paragraph F un der the "De finition s" po rtion of the po licy provid es as follow s: "F. 'Family member' means a person r elat ed to y ou by bl ood, marri age[,] or adoptionwho is a resi dent of y our househol d. This inclu des a w ard or f oste r ch ild." Plaintiff contends t

hat the defini tion i s ambiguous. In part icular, pl ainti ff contends that the term s "w ard" a nd "foster c hild" h ave s evera l diffe rent m eanin gs. W ords th at are clear and u nam bigu ous m ust be given their plain , ord inar y, and pop ular me anin g. Outboard Marine Corp. , 154 I ll. 2d at 119 , 607 N .E.2d at 121 7. In determin ing wh ether a policy term is ambiguous, t

he standard is not

whe ther parties disagree, bu t whethe r the term is reaso nably
susce ptib le to m ore than one inter pre tatio n. Valley Forge I nsurance Co. v. Swiderski4

Electronics, Inc. , 223 Il l. 2d 352, 363, 860 N.E.2d 307, 314 (200 6). If a w ord is re ason ably
susce ptible to more than one meaning, it will be cons idered amb iguo us an d con strued strictly againstthe drafter o f the po licy. Central I llinois Light

Co. , 213 Il l. 2d at 153, 821 N.E. 2d at213 . A co urt w il l not sea rch for am big uity w her e the re is n one . Crum & Forster Man agers Corp. v. Re solution Tru st Corp. , 156 Il l. 2d 384, 391, 620 N.E.2d 1073, 1078 ( 1993). Although any

terms t hat limit an i nsurer' s li ability will be c onstrue d in fav or o f coverage, this rule comes into pl ay only i f the pol icy is am big uou s. Hobbs , 214 Il l. 2d at 17, 823 N.E .2d a t 56 4. If an insurance pol ic ydoe s no t d efine apar ti cul arte rm, a court should afford the term its plain and ord inar y mea nin g. Outboard Marine Corp. , 154 Ill . 2d at 115, 607 N.E.2d at 1215. Dictionaries provide several defi nitions for t he term "ward." "Ward. *** 6.a
. Law
. A minor or inc ompetent per son placed unde r the care or protection of a gua rdia n or cou rt. b. A pe rson und er the protection o r care of an other. 7. The state of

bein g und er g uar d; cu stod y. 8 . The act of guarding or

protecting; gua rdia nsh ip." The American Herit age Dicti onary of the English Language 2013 (3d ed. 1 992 ). "Ward. *** 2: the state of b eing u nder guar d; esp : CUSTO DY. *** 6: a person or thing under

guard, protecti on, or surveill ance: as a: a min or su bjec t to w ard ship , b:
a person who by r eason of inc apacit y ( as minorit

y or lunacy) is unde r the pr otect ion of a court either directly or through a guardian appointed by the court - c alled a ls o wardof court , c: a person or body of persons unde r the pr otect ion or t utela ge of a govern ment." M iriam-W ebster's Collegiate D ictionary 1331 (10 th ed. 1993 ). "Ward. 2. a. gen. Guardianship, keepi ng, control. *** b. spec . Gu ardian ship of a child, a min or, or o ther pe rson le gally incapable of conducting his affairs. Also, t he conditi on of b eing s ubjec t to a gu ardian ." The Ox ford Eng lish D ictiona ry 86-87 , vol.5

VII (193 3) (reprinted in 19 61, 1970 ). See Valley Forge I

nsurance Co. , 223 Il l. 2d at 366, 860 N.E. 2d at316 (dictionari es provi de the plain and ordinary usage o f terms fo r contract interpretation). Defendant contends that t he term "ward" is a t erm of legalsigni ficance. A contrac t term is un am big uou s if it h as a n es tabli she d an d pr ecis e leg al m ean ing

. Ri ch v. Pri nc ipal Life Insurance Co. , 226 Il l. 2d 359, 373, 875 N. E.2d 1082, 1091 ( 2007). On the other hand, there may be no re quirement to sat isfy

the el ements of a l egal t erm if the polic y does not explic itl y purportto rely on or define the le gal te rm. See Barth v. State Farm Fire& Casualty Co. , 228 Ill. 2d 163, 88 6 N.E .2d 976 (2 008). Defendant reli es on Rosen ber g v. Zurich American I nsurance Co. , 312 Il l. App. 3d 97, 726 N.E.2d 29 (2000). In Rosenberg , a nurs ing home resi dent was fat ally injur ed when he was struck by

an automobil e driven by an u ni nsure d m otorist. T he res ident's es tate cla imed that h e was covered by the poli cy i ssued to t

he corporation which operated the nursinghome. The cour t foun d that th e polic y did not ins ure the r esident . The poli cy appl ied to "fam ilymembers" only if the policy

holder was an "indi vidual. " The polic y for m provided that the poli cyhol der could be eithe r a "partners hip," a "corpor ation, " or an "i ndividual ." The defendantwas a corporation, not an indivi dual, so the "f amily member" pr ovisio n did not ap pl y. Rosenberg , 312 Ill . App. 3dat 101, 726 N.E.2d at 33. Additional ly , the court not ed that under Il linoi s law a corporation cannot hav e fa mily m em ber s. Rosenberg , 312 Il l. App. 3d at 102, 726 N.E.2d at 33. The plaintiff

argu ed tha t the de fend ant sh ould not be consi dereda regular corpor ation because of its sp ecia l role as a lo ng -te rm ca re fa cil ity a nd th at t hi s c re ate d a n a m bi gu ity. Rosenberg , 312 Ill . App. 3d at 102, 726 N.E.2d at

33. The plaintiff

pointed out

that nur sing home resi dents r ely

on the faci lit

y for the ess entia ls of eve ryd ay l ife, including food and shelter. Nonet heless , the cour t foun d that th e lang uage of the policy co vered "fam ily6

members" only

when the signatorywas designat ed as an individua l an d not a corpor ation. Rosenberg , 312 Il l. App. 3d at 103, 726 N.E. 2d at 34. The plaintiff

then argue d that t

he resi dent was a "ward" of t he nursi ng home and, therefore, w as co vered und er the " fam ilyme mb er" p rov ision

. Rosenberg , 312 I ll. App. 3d at106, 726 N.E.2d at

36 (citing Ca rrin gto n v. St. Paul Fire & Marine I

nsurance Co. , 169 Wis. 2d 211 , 485 N .W.2d 2 67 (199 2), and Hartman v. Insurance Co. of North Ameri ca , 106 Mich. App. 731, 308 N.W.2d 625 (198 1)) . The court found no reason t o overri de the unambiguous decla ration th at the family m emb er pro vision applie d only if a policy holde r was an individual. The court responded as follows:

"A wa rd ha s bee n defined in Illin ois a s ' "[a] pe rson, e spec ially an infa nt, placed by

au th or ity o f la w un de r th e c ar e o f a gu ar di an " ' ( In re Jennings , 68 Il l. 2d 125, 132, 368 N.E.2d 864, 868 (1977), quo ting Bla ck's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951)) or, co mparabl y, ' "t he person over

whom or over whose property a guardian is ap po in ted " ' ( Jennings , 68 Ill . 2d at 132-33, 368 N.E.2d

at 86 8, quo ti ng 39 C.J .S. Guardian & Ward , §2 (1976))." Rosenberg , 312 I ll. App. 3d at 106, 726 N.E.2d at 36. The co ur t fo un d n o a m bi gu ity b ec au se th e r es id en t "w as no t le ga lly d isa bl ed , in hi s m in or ity,
or in any w ay unde r the gu ardian ship o f ano ther ind ividua l or entity, let alo ne the State of Illinois, so as to meet

the le gal definition of a ward." Rosenberg , 312 Il l. App. 3d at 106, 726 N.E.2d at 36 (citing In re Jennings , 68 Ill. 2d at 132-33, 368 N.E.2d at 868) . In t he end, t he po licy con ta in ed n o amb ig ui ty cal li ng f

ora po ss ib le app li catio n of th e fami lymembe r provisi on. The court concluded, "[P] laintiff has fa iled to show the poli cy in disput e was ambigu ous in no t including 'family mem ber' coverage to Hill crest resi dents, meaning even if Santanie llo coul d theoretical ly be c onsider ed a ward of Hill crest , the policy would not insure him in this case. " Rosenberg , 312 Il l. App. 3d at 106, 726 N.E. 2d at 36.7

Rosenberg is of litt le instr uction to the case at hand. The issue in Rosenberg was not whetherthe defi niti on of the st atus of t he plaintiff, as a ward, was ambiguous, but whether the statu s of th e plain tiff w as so c ertain th at it raised a laten t amb iguity in the defini tion of the stat us of the pol icyholder as a corporation. The co ur t fo un d t ha t th e p lai nt iff's stat us was not so certain because he did not " meet the l egal definition of a ward." Rosenberg , 312 I ll. App. 3d a t 10 6, 72 6 N .E.2 d at 3 6. Rose nberg fou nd no n eed to add ress wh ether the term "ward" was ambiguous because the res ident was not legal ly disabl ed or, l ike pla inti ff in the
case at hand, "in his minorit y." Rosenberg , 312 Il l. App. 3d at 10 6, 7 26 N. E. 2d at 3 6; cf. Carrington , 169 Wis. 2d 211, 485 N.W.2d 267. The legal definition of

the term "ward" used i n Rosenberg had been provi ded in In re Jennings , 68 Ill . 2d 125, 133, 368 N.E.2d 864, 868 (1977) . In In re Jennings , a grandmot her file d a peti tion s eeking the termi nation of the ri ghts of a cour

t-appointed guardi an and the revocat ion of consents to adopti on signed by herdau ght er. The grandmother argued that the
cons ents to adopti on w ere inv ali d because the tri al court had fail ed to adj udge the grandchil dren "wards of the c ourt" pur suant t o the Juvenil e Court Act(Il l. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 37, par. 701-1 et seq. ). In re Jennings , 68 Ill. 2d at131, 368 N.E.2d at 867. Ins tead, the tri al court had de clare d the chi ldren t o be "dependent." In re Jennings , 68 Il l. 2d at 132, 368 N.E .2d at 8 68. T he Illino is Sup reme Co urt fou nd th e trial cou rt langu age s uffic ient:

"W e do not quarr el with t he proposi tion t

hatin a specialstat

utory proceedi ng
an order must

contai n the j uri sdic tion al fin din gs p resc ribe d by st atute . ( Zook v. Spannaus , 34 Ill. 2d 612 [, 217 N.E .2d 78 9 (19 66)]; In re Bart ha , 87 Ill. App. 2d 263[, 230 N.E .2d 88 6 (19 67)]; In re Barr , 37 Ill . App. 3d 10[, 344 N.E .2d 5 17 ( 197 6)].) How ever, the term 'ward of the cour t' as used in the statute has no sign ificance apa rt from the legalstat

us about which t

he stat ute is concerned. This same st atus canb e
acce ptably des cribed in other langua ge. Blac ks Law Dictionary(4th ed. 1951) define s8

'ward' as: ' A person, espe cially an infant, placed by authori ty

of law under the care of
a gua rdia n.' In 3 9 C .J.S., Guardian and Ward , s ec . 2 (1 976 ), we find the following:

'A wardis the pe rson o ver w hom or ov er w hose prop erty a gua rdian is appointed . With referen ce to mino rs, a ward is an i nfantplace d by auth ority of law under the care of a guardian, and such an infant is a w ard of the c ourt app oin ting the g uar dian .' (Foo tno tes o mitte d.) The stat ute is concerned wit

h the fi nding and adj udicat ion of a parti cular status. It does not require that the order

and proc eedin gs be ri tuali zed to the extent that language ot

her than t he words 'ward of t

he court'which describes the s ame stat us
ma y not b e us ed. If the accep ted definitions of 'ward' referr ed to above be subst itut ed for that word in section 4-8[, ] it becomes readi ly

apparent that t he findings and adjudi cati on in the order

of the trialcourt compl y wit h the jurisdi ctiona l requiremen ts o f the statute. " In re Jennings , 68 I ll. 2d at 13 2-3 3, 36 8 N .E.2 d at 8 68. On ce rea d in context , it becomes apparent

that the extrapolation of the defini tion pr ovided in In re J ennings to th e ca se a t han d is p rob lem atic. F irst, In re Jennings is di scussi ng the phras e "ward of the c our t." Se con d, In re Jennings is addr essing t hat te rm "as used in the statu te," th e J uve ni le Cour t Ac t. The insurance pol ic yma kes no referenc e to, and is not limi tedto, a statutoryor "le gal d efin ition " of a w ard

. Rosenberg , 312 Il l. App. 3d at 106, 726 N.E.2d at 36 ( citing In re Jennings , 68 I ll. 2d at 13 2-3 3, 36 8 N .E.2 d at 8 68)

. The claim th at t he ter m "w ar d" is a pr ec ise leg al t er m is b eli ed by Parks v. Kownacki , 305 Ill . App. 3d 449, 461, 711 N .E.2d 120 8, 12 16 ( 199 9), rev'd on ot her grounds , 193 I ll. 2d 164, 737 N.E.2d 287 (2000). In Parks , Illinois recognized that the term "ward" could be used to des cribe a perso n des pite no prior a djud ication of th at st at us. I n Parks , an ad ult
woman sued a pr iest, claim ing she had bee n sexually abus ed as a chi ld. The priest had9

obtaine d permissi on from the plaintiff' s parent s for her to mov e wi thhi m t o a n out- of -t own assignment

in order for

her to at tend a l arger hi gh school. The church clai med that i t owed the plainti ff no duty of care. The appellate court found as follows: "W e conc lude th at both the ch urch and th e D iocese can b e resp onsib le because of the guardian/w ard re lati ons hi p c re at edwhe n Fath er Kown ac ki wa s al lowed to keep a teenage girlin the rectory as his ho usekeepe r, t o send her t o school far from her paren ts and family , and t o, at a minimum, exer cise al l the controlover herthat a legal guardianwould be all ow ed to exer cise. A fiduciar y dut y exi sts bet

ween a guardian and a ward. See In re E state of Osbo rn , 128 Il l. App. 3d 453, 470 N.E.2d 1114 (1984). A car et ake r o f a c hi ldhas a duty to pr ot ect

th e ch il d fr om harm. See People v. Watson , 103 I ll. App . 3d 99 2, 431 N.E .2d 13 50 (1 982 ). The duty to prot ectfrom harm certa inly

encompasses a dut

y t o re frain from harming and to restrain othe rs with in one's c ontro l from harm ing. U nder the fa cts alleg ed in this c ase , a duty of care exists because of t

he guardian/ward relationship. " Parks , 305 Ill . App. 3d at 461, 711 N.E .2d a t 12 16. Although the su prem e cou rt revers ed the appe llate cou rt decisio n on oth er grounds , it did state that w hen th e pries t "acce pted th e resp onsib ility of plaintiff's care an d edu cati on, h e tookon the rol e of her guardi an, even t hough he was not given t hattitl e by a court. " Parks , 193 Ill . 2d at

169, 737 N.E.2d at

290. As in Parks , the policy holder' s rel ations hip to pl ainti ff could b e seen as a "guardian /ward relationship" ( Parks , 305 Il l. App. 3d at 461, 711 N.E. 2d at 1216). Plaintiff alle ged that he w as a mino r, reside d w ith the poli cyhol der, and was financial ly dependant on the policyho lder fo r care a nd su ppo rt. The polic yh older d escrib ed his relation ship w ith plain tiff a s ha vin g a p aren tal na ture
. Although no Ill inois court has directly addresse d the issue of w hat constitutes a w ard10

forpurposes of an insurance poli cyheld by an indivi dual, the feder al court s provide guidance
on the m atter
. Houston v. National General I nsurance Co. , 817 F.2d 83, 84 (10th C ir. 1987). In Houston , the mother of the polic yhol der' s grandchi ld was li ving with the poli cyhol der at the time of an autom obile a ccide nt. Th e plain tiff asse rted sh e w as co vered as a fa mily
mem ber. The insuranc e polic y defined "famil y member" as a " ' person re late d to y ou by blood, marriage [,] or

adoption who is a resi dent of y our hou seho ld. Th is include s a ward or foster child.' " Houston , 817 F .2d at 8 4. Th e Te nth C ircuit fo und that am bigu ityin the term "ward" precluded a summ ary j udgment for the insurer. The court stated as fol lows:

"The insura nce p olicy doe s not d efine 'ward ' or exp ressly limit co verag e to those situation s wh ere 'w ard' status is conferred by legalappointment

or plac eme nt. Under these c ir cumst ances, ' [t]he c ourt may look to di ctionarydefini tions of the ambiguous term, and if there i s a rang e of re ason able mea ning s, the co urt mu st app ly the mean ing wh ich provide s the mos t covera ge fo r th e in su re d.' Pola nd v. M artin , 761 F.2d 546, 548 ( 9th Cir. 1985). Consequently , we conc lu de tha t 'ward ' is ambiguous and s hou ld no t be res tricted to a tech nical, leg al def inition in cludin g on ly
a person on behal f of whom a lega l gu ardian ha s been appoint ed by a c ourt of competent jurisdict ion." Houston , 817 F.2d at 85. Plaintiff contends t

hat defendant 's de nial of coverage was i n bad faith and vexatious. 215 ILCS 5/ 155 (West 2002). Although the terms of the pol icy are ambiguous, defendant prese nts a bona fidedisput e r egar ding covera ge. See Libert y Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Home Assurance Co. , 368 Ill. A pp. 3 d 94 8, 96 2, 85 8 N .E.2 d 53 0, 54 2 (2 006 ). The trial c our t cor rectl y den ied th e ple a fo r san ction s. Because this court finds that plaintiff suffi cient ly

supporte d a clai m tha t he was a fam ilymember under the pol icy as a w ar d o f G re go ry, w e n ee d n ot ad dr es s p lai nt iff's
asse rtion that h e w as a lso a fos ter ch ild o f G reg ory.11 CONCLUS ION Accordingly , the orderof the ci rcuit court ent ering asummary j udgment in favor of defendant i s hereby

vacated and t

he matter

is re manded.
Vacated; cause remanded.

WE LC H an d SPO ME R, JJ., concur.NO. 5-07-0061 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ STEVE N CLAYTON, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Pla intiff-A ppe llant , ) B on d C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 03-L-22 ) MILLERS FIRST I

NSURANCE ) COM PANIES, ) Honorable ) John Kn ight, De fen dan t-A ppe llee. ) Jud ge, p resid ing

.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opinion Filed : July 25, 2008

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justice s : Honorable R ichard P. Goldenhersh, J.

Honorable Th omas M . Welch, J. Honorable Stephen L . Spomer, J. Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney Pat rick R. F oley, W illiam s, C apo ni, F oley & Ec ker t, PC , 30 E ast M ain S treet , for Bellevi lle, IL 62220 Appell ant

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney M icha el J. B ede sky, R eed , Ar ms tron g, G orm an, M udg e & M orris sey, P.C ., for 115 North Buchanan, P. O. Box 368, Edwardsvil le, IL 62025 Appellee

___________________________________________________________________________________