text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division
March 27, 2015
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee (State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Plaintiff; Andrew Toig, Randall M. Toig and Teri E. Zenner, Defendants)
Page 441
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 2011 CH 31467. The Honorable Thomas R. Allen, Judge, presiding.
FOR APPELLANT: Frank C. Stevens, TAYLOR MILLER LLC, Chicago, Illinois.
FOR APPELLEE: Thomas L. Buck, MAGNANI & BUCK LTD., Chicago, Illinois.
JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McBride and Reyes concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Page 442
[¶1] On this direct appeal, plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Progressive).
[¶2] Plaintiff State Farm brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that its underinsured motorist coverage did not cover Andrew Toig (Andrew) for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident while a student at Colorado College. Andrew had sought coverage pursuant to the State Farm auto policies held by his father, Randall Toig, and stepmother, Teri Zenner (collectively, the Toigs), and pursuant to a single Progressive policy held by Andrew's mother, Allison Wines. The principal question before the trial court and now before this court is whether Andrew is a " relative," as defined by the State Farm policies.
[¶3] For the following reasons, we affirm.
[¶5] I. The Policies
[¶6] Plaintiff State Farm provided three automobile insurance policies to the Toigs: two to the father and one to the stepmother. The question is whether these automobile policies provide underinsured motorist coverage to Andrew. The parties agree that Andrew is covered if he is a " relative," as defined by the State Farm auto policies:
" Relative --means a person related to you or your spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who resides primarily with you. It includes your unmarried and unemancipated child away at school." (Emphases in original.)
State Farm does not challenge coverage under any other provision of its policies.
[¶7] There is no dispute among the parties: that the term " relative" specifically includes a " child away at school," and specifically excludes married and emancipated children, and that Andrew was at school and was not married or emancipated at the time of the accident.
[¶8] State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm Fire) also provided the Toigs with two personal liability umbrella policies. However, these umbrella policies did not include underinsured motorist coverage, and the trial court ruled that these umbrella policies did not apply. No one has appealed this ruling, so these policies are not at issue on appeal.
[¶9] Defendant Progressive provided an automobile insurance policy to Allison Wines, Andrew's mother. However, Progressive does not dispute coverage on appeal, so that policy is also not before us.
[¶10] II. Undisputed Facts
[¶11] In the case below, both State Farm and Progressive filed motions for summary judgment, thereby acknowledging that
Page 443
there were no material issues of fact preventing a grant of summary judgment. Gaudina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2014 IL App. (1st) 131264, ¶ 16, 380 Ill.Dec. 418, 8 N.E.3d 588 ( where both parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, they concede the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and invite the court to decide the question as a matter of law); 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012) (a party seeking summary judgment must show " that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" ). Thus, on appeal, neither party argues that there was a material issue of fact which barred the trial court's entry of summary judgment. Both parties agree that the question before us on appeal is purely a question of law and that it involves solely the application of law to undisputed facts.
[¶12] The trial court summarized the undisputed facts as follows:
" Andrew is related to his father by blood and stepmother by marriage. The undisputed facts of this case indicate that Andrew was unmarried, unemancipated, and living in a campus-owned apartment in Colorado at the time of the accident. Andrew considers both his father's and mother's homes to be his residences, and when he returned to Chicago during vacations and holidays he attempted to split his time between the households on a '50-50' basis. He came and went from both households as he pleased; he had keys to both houses and kept possessions at both locations. The facts show that Andrew used his father's address for school billing records as well as for his health care and health insurance." State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Toig, No. 2011 CH 31467, slip op. at 2 (Cir. Ct. Cook Co. Sept. 30, 2013).
[¶13] Neither party has argued on appeal that the trial court's above recitation of facts was incorrect.
[¶14] III. Procedural History
[¶15] One issue on appeal is whether forfeiture applies to several claims now raised by appellant State Farm. We therefore describe in detail the procedural history.
[¶16] On September 7, 2011, plaintiffs State Farm and State Farm Fire filed a declaratory judgment action in the trial court. The complaint stated, upon information and belief, that defendant Progressive " has or will claim" that the Toigs' State Farm and State Farm Fire policies provide underinsured motor vehicle coverage on a pro rata basis with the coverage provided by Progressive.
[¶17] Count I, which was brought solely by State Farm, alleged that the auto policies did not provide coverage to Andrew for the sole reason that " he did not reside primarily with" the Toigs.
[¶18] Count II, which was brought solely by State Farm Fire, alleged that its personal liability umbrella policy did not provide coverage to Andrew because the policy " did not include motor vehicle coverage." As already stated above, this count is not at issue on this appeal.
[¶19] On November 14, 2011, Progressive filed an answer and also a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the three State Farm auto policies[1] and the one Progressive policy shared coverage for the accident " on an equal basis" or " 25 percent each." In its counterclaim, Progressive also alleged that the total amount of coverage allowed Andrew from all policies was $500,000 because that was the highest amount of any one policy, and that the $40,000 paid by the tortfeasor's insurance must be subtracted from the $500,000,
Page 444
leaving Andrew with a maximum of $460,000 that he could collect from both State Farm and Progressive.
[¶20] On January 13, 2012, State Farm filed an answer to Progressive's counterclaim. In its answer, it " [a]dmit[ted]" Progressive's allegations that the State Farm auto policies define the word " relative" to mean a person related to the named insured or the named insured's spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who resides primarily with the named insured, and that the " policies also define 'relative' to include the named insured's unmarried and unemancipated child away at school."
[¶21] On September 20, 2012, State Farm and State Farm Fire filed an amended complaint which added allegations relating only to State Farm Fire. The amended complaint added count III which concerned a personal liability umbrella policy issued by State Farm Fire to Andrew's stepmother. The complaint also amended count II to add an allegation that Progressive " has or will claim" that the father's personal umbrella liability policy provides underinsured motorist coverage on a pro rata basis.
[¶22] On November 21, 2012, State Farm and State Farm Fire filed a joint motion for summary judgment. The first claim was that State Farm Fire's personal umbrella liability policies do not provide underinsured motorist coverage. As stated before, this claim is not at issue on appeal.
[¶23] The motion's next three claims concerned State Farm and claimed: (1) that the two separate lines of the policy's definition of " relative" must both apply for someone to be a relative, and that Andrew did not satisfy the first line, which required him to reside " primarily" with the Toigs, since he divided his residence equally between the Toigs and his mother; (2) that Andrew did not reside " primarily" with his parents in Chicago, because he registered to vote in Colorado; and (3) that, even if the State Farm auto policies covered Andrew, the maximum amount of coverage available to him is $500,000, because its policies provide that the total available under all policies shall be the highest amount allowed by any one policy.[2]
[¶24] In its motion, State Farm did not argue: (1) that Andrew failed to satisfy the second line of the " relative" definition; (2) that, if coverage applied, the three State Farm auto polices and the one Progressive policy should not share coverage for the accident on an equal basis or 25 % each, as Progressive had argued in its counterclaim; (3) that Andrew was excluded from coverage from his stepmother's policy because he was a child by marriage rather than a biological child; or (4) that the $40,000 recovered from the tortfeasor's insurer should be subtracted from the limits of each of the applicable policies rather than from the total.
[¶25] On December 21, 2012, Progressive filed its response to State Farm's motion and also its own cross-motion for summary judgment. Progressive's arguments were all directed to State Farm's auto insurance policies.
[¶26] In its cross-motion, Progressive agreed with State Farm that the total amount of coverage allowed Andrew was $500,000 because that was the highest amount of any one policy, but it further argued that the $40,000 paid by the tortfeasor's insurance must be subtracted from the $500,000, leaving Andrew with a
Page 445
maximum of $460,000 that he could collect from both State Farm and Progressive.
[¶27] In its cross-motion, Progressive argued, as it had in its counterclaim, that the three State Farm auto and the one Progressive policy provided coverage on an equal basis, or 25 %, with each policy providing coverage limited to $115,000, or 25 % of $460,000.
[¶28] On February 22, 2013, the trial court struck the previously scheduled hearing date of February 28, 2013, and permitted State Farm to file a " Response/Reply to Progressive's Response and Cross Motion." In its reply to this document, Progressive observed that, while State Farm acknowledged in its response that the combined limit was $500,000, State Farm's reply does not mention the setoff for the $40,000 already paid by the tortfeasor's insurance, which reduced the combined limit to $460,000. Progressive stated: " No party has contested this position by motion, response or reply."
[¶29] On May 8, 2013, the trial court set the hearing on State Farm's and Progressive's summary judgment motions for July 31, 2013.
[¶30] On July 31, 2013, at the hearing, the trial court observed that it had " dueling cross motions for summary judgment" before it. The State Farm attorney asked the court if the court wanted to ask questions or if it preferred the attorneys to proceed with their prepared argument, and the court indicated the latter. The State Farm attorney stated first, on behalf of State Farm Fire, " it is not contested in any of the briefs, that those [personal liability umbrella] policies do not provide underinsured motorist coverage."
[¶31] Then, on behalf of State Farm, the attorney argued that the question was " whether or not Andrew Toig resided primarily with Randall Toig and Teri Zenner [Andrew's father and stepmother] on the date of the accident because the policy definition of 'relative' means a relative must reside primarily with the named insured."
[¶32] State Farm also argued that " the most that Andrew Toig could ever recover under all applicable underinsured motorist coverage would be $500,000," which is also the amount of the Progressive policy. As a result, " the real dispute" was not between the Toigs and State Farm, but between State Farm and Progressive. State Farm observed: " This has really become a dispute as to whether State Farm should be sharing pro rata with Progressive on any payment made to Andrew Toig for his underinsured claim." State Farm's " response to that is State Farm doesn't provide coverage."
[¶33] Progressive argued next and observed that " [t]here are four legal issues that have been presented to the Court" and " only one of those legal issues is contested," and that is " whether or not Andrew Toig qualifies as an insured relative under his father's and his stepmother's policy."
[¶34] With respect to the contested issue, Progressive argued that State Farm had discussed only the first sentence of the " relative" definition. " But then there's a period, and there's a separate sentence," which defines the term " relative" to include the name insured's unmarried and unemancipated child away at school. " The reason" for that sentence is " that if you didn't allow for there to be coverage for a child away at school, you'd never have underinsured *** motorist coverage for that relative because when they're away at school, they can't be said to be primarily residing with" their parents.
[¶35] Progressive concluded by briefly noting the three uncontested issues: (1)
Page 446
that the limit for total coverage is $500,000; (2) that this amount is set off by $40,000, which is the amount paid by the tortfeasor's insurance, thereby bringing the limit for total coverage down to $460,000; (3) and that each of the four policies is responsible for 25 % of that $460,000, or $115,000. In its rebuttal argument, State Farm agreed with the first point, stating that if the State Farm polices apply, " the policies don't stack," and did not respond to the other two points.
[¶36] The parties agreed to order the transcript, and the court stated that it took the matter under advisement in order to give this issue its " best shot." The court then set a status date for September 30, 2013.
[¶37] IV. The Trial Court's Orders
[¶38] On September 30, 2013, in a three-page memorandum order, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Progressive.
[¶39] The personal liability umbrella policies issued by State Farm Fire were addressed by the trial court in a footnote on the first page: " As a preliminary matter, this Court finds it unnecessary to decide whether or not Andrew Toig would be covered under State Farm's 'umbrella' policies, as this decision is predicated on other grounds." As stated above, these policies are not an issue on appeal, and State Farm Fire is not an appellant.
[¶40] The trial court stated the issue before it as: " whether Defendant Andrew Toig is an 'insured' as defined under the State Farm policies." The court held that it did not have to decide whether Andrew " primarily resides" in his father's home as provided by the first sentence of the " relative" definition, because " the second sentence must be read in the disjunctive" and the second sentence provided coverage for an " unmarried and unemancipated child away at school." The court ruled: " If this sentence were not in the disjunctive, then those children would never be insured under their parents' policies, because the children would 'primarily' reside at school, not at home."
[¶41] The trial court further held that " Andrew is eligible to receive a total of $460,000 from the four policies," namely, the one Progressive policy and the three State Farm auto policies, and that " the policies must share coverage on an equal basis," with each policy responsible for $115,000 in coverage.
[¶42] On October 24, 2013, State Farm filed a motion for rehearing. The motion stated that it was made only by State Farm, not by State Farm Fire. State Farm argued for the first time: (1) that Andrew was not his stepmother's " child" under her insurance policy; (2) that the $40,000 received from the tortfeasor's insurer should be subtracted from each policy, when considering the applicable exposure for each policy; and (3) that the coverage should be prorated by each policy's limits, meaning that, if the stepmother's policy did not apply, then the coverage from the one Progressive policy was $204,454.61 and the coverage from the two State Farm auto policies issued to the father was only $109,772 each, for a total coverage of $460,000.
[¶43] State Farm's motion for rehearing claimed that " [t]he briefing up to this time has concerned only the question of whether State Farm provides any underinsured motorist coverage at all, and not how the underinsured liability should be allocated among the applicable policies." Actually, Progressive raised the issue in its counterclaim, in its cross-motion for summary judgment, in its reply brief and at the hearing on summary judgment; and State Farm did not respond, either in its briefs or at the hearing.
Page 447
[¶44] In its reply, Progressive observed that: " In its motion, State Farm argues for the first time: (1) Andrew Toig is not covered by [stepmother] Teri Zenner's policy because he is her stepchild; and (2) the remaining three policies should share coverage on a pro-rata basis *** with the limits of each policy reduced by the amount of liability payments." Progessive argued that State Farm waived these issues by failing to raise them, since the purpose of a motion to reconsider is only to bring to the court's attention: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) changes in the law; or (3) claimed errors in the application of existing law.
[¶45] On February 5, 2014, the trial court heard argument on State Farm's motion for rehearing. State Farm argued that, since the trial court's September 30, 2013, order did not rule on State Farm Fire's umbrella policies, and did not contain Supreme Court Rule 304(a)[3] language, the order was not a final appealable judgment and could be changed at any time. The court inquired, " So you're just bringing that argument up so that you can revisit this, right?", and State Farm responded: " Yes."
[¶46] Progressive observed: " Now, I think part of the problem may be the fact that on the copy of the order we got, on the first page, there's a footnote where I believe the Court was entering its ruling with respect to the umbrella policies and our copy was cut off on that footnote." The court confirmed: " There was something cut off, but -- anyhow, somehow by the competer. But let's put the umbrella policies to bed anyhow." The court acknowledged: " I saw that it was cut off. I did see that. I apologize. The age of computers, right." The copy of the September 30, 2013, order in the appellate record contains a sentence of footnote 1, but it does not indicate what was cut off.
[¶47] With respect to waiver, the trial court held that this argument was " a Mulligan," but it would not base its " decision on waiver" :
" THE COURT: I get motions to consider all the time. It's automatic almost. So on the waiver issues, I err on the side of caution. I mean, I'm always -- I shouldn't use the word happy to reread everything, but -- which I did again and again today. I'm not going to suggest that that's the best way to do it. But in reality, this is a Mulligan. *** but I'm not going to, you know, make a decision based on waiver. I'm not going to do that."
[¶48] The trial court ruled that the State Farm auto policy did not exclude stepchildren. When State Farm argued, " [s]tepchild and child are not the same thing," the court stated: " You'd better not tell any parents or stepparents that." When State Farm responded, " there's a reason why we have two different words," the court stated: " Why don't they exclude stepchild in their policy? Why don't they say, caution, this does not include stepchild? You know that's not in the policy." The court concluded that " the policy is written by State Farm," and " State Farm should pay the price for having an ambiguous policy."
[¶49] As for the proration issue, the trial court declined to alter its prior ruling on this issue, holding: " I'm sticking to my guns. The 500,000, take off the 40, that leaves you with 460, and everybody shares equally 115."
[¶50] The trial court also stated that, " just for clarity," it would issue " a
Page 448
finding that those policies, those umbrella policies, don't apply." The court reitierated " that was a little miscue on our part, but I didn't catch it."
[¶51] The trial court's handwritten order on February 5, 2014, stated in full:
" This cause coming to be heard on motion of State Farm for rehearing, due notice given and the court being fully advised in the premises:
It is hereby ordered that State Farm's motion for rehearing is denied.
It is further ordered that State Farm is granted summary judgment with respect to the umbrella policies, the court declaring that State Farm [Fire's] umbrella policies do not provide underinsured motorist coverage for the occurrence of March 13, 2008."
[¶52] On February 11, 2014, State Farm filed a notice of appeal stating that it appealed " from the order and judgment entered on September 30, 2013 and the order entered on February 5, 2014, granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees." As quoted above, the February 5 order granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff State Farm Fire, not in favor of defendants.
[¶54] On this direct appeal, State Farm claims that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Progressive, because the State Farm auto policies issued to Andrew Toig's father and stepmother did not cover Andrew.
[¶55] State Farm argues that its polices did not cover Andrew: (1) because he was not a child " away at school" as its policies provide, when he did not intend to return to his parents' home after graduation; (2) because its provisions for a child " who resides primarily with you" and a child " away at school" must be applied together, and Andrew did not reside primarily with the Toigs, since his parents were divorced and he also stayed with his mom when in Chicago; and (3) because Andrew did not qualify as " your" child under his stepmother's policy, where the policy defined the word " relative" to include " a person related to you or your spouse by blood, marriage or adoption."
[¶56] State Farm also claims that, if Andrew is covered, then the trial court also erred: (1) in its calculation of the proration with the Progressive policy; and (2) by not subtracting the $40,000 recovered from the tortfeasor's insurer from each State Farm auto policy.
[¶57] Progressive asks us to affirm the trial court's judgment, and also argues that State Farm forfeited the following legal theories by waiting to raise them until State Farm's motion for a rehearing: (1) that Andrew was excluded as a stepchild from being " your" child in his stepmother's policy; (2) that the State Farm auto and Progressive polices should share coverage on a prorata basis by comparing the liability amount of each policy to the total of all limits; and (3) that State Farm is entitled to a setoff of $40,000 paid by the liability insurers for each policy.
[¶58] For the following reasons, we do not find State Farm's claims persuasive, and we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive.
[¶59] I. Declaratory Judgment
[¶60] This action was brought as a declaratory judgment action pursuant to section 2-701 of Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-701 (West 2012)). This section permits a court in " cases of actual controversy" to " make binding declarations of rights *** including the determination, at the instance of anyone interested in the controversy, of the construction of any *** contract *** and a declaration of
Page 449
the rights of the parties interested." 735 ILCS 5/2-701(a) (West 2012). The " [d]eclarations of rights, as herein provided for, may be obtained by means of a pleading seeking that relief alone, or as incident to or part of a complaint, counterclaim or other pleading seeking other relief as well." 735 ILCS 5/2-701(b) (West 2012). In the case at bar, plaintiffs sought solely a declaratory judgment; and the trial court issued a declaratory judgment, albeit not the one they were seeking.
[¶61] Although this section specifically permits jury trials if there are issues of fact (735 ILCS 5/2-701(d) (West 2012)), the judgment here was issued without trial and upon motions for summary judgment.
[¶62] II. Standard of Review
[¶63] In appeals from summary judgment rulings, we conduct a de novo review. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill.2d 90, 102, 607 N.E.2d 1204, 180 Ill.Dec. 691 (1992). Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012); Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 102. Here, all parties agree there are no issues of material fact. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court will review the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and admissions on file (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012)), and will No. 1-14-0447 20 construe the facts in these documents against the moving party. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 131-32.
[¶64] The construction of an insurance policy's provisions is also a question of law, which we also review de novo. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 108. To ascertain the meaning of the policy's words and the intent of the parties, the court must construe the policy as a whole. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 108. If the words in the policy are unambiguous, a court must afford them their plain and ordinary meaning. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 108. However, if the words in the policy are susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, they are ambiguous and will be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drafted the policy. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 108.
[¶65] III. Denial of Rehearing
[¶66] In its notice of appeal, defendant State Farm indicated that it appealed not only the trial court's denial on September 30, 2013, of its summary judgment motion, but also the trial court's denial on February 5, 2014, of its motion for rehearing.
[¶67] As we discussed above in the Background section, State Farm argued in its motion for rehearing: (1) that Andrew was not his stepmother's " child" under her insurance policy; (2) that the $40,000 received from the tortfeasor's insurer should be subtracted from each policy, when considering the applicable No. 1-14-0447 21 exposure for each policy; and (3) that coverage should be prorated by each policy limit, meaning that, if the stepmother's policy did not apply, then the coverage from the one Progressive policy was $204,454.61 and the coverage from the two State Farm auto policies issued to the father would be only $109,772 each, for total coverage of $460,000. On appeal, Progressive argued forfeiture of these issues; and, in its appellate reply brief, State Farm did not deny that it failed to raise these claims in its summary judgment motion and that it raised these claims for the first time in its motion for a rehearing.
Page 450
[¶68] The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to a court's attention: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) changes in the law; or (3) errors in the court's previous application of existing law. River Plaza Homeowner's Ass'n, 389 Ill.App.3d 268, 280, 904 N.E.2d 1102, 328 Ill.Dec. 592 (2009); North River Insurance Co. v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 369 Ill.App.3d 563, 572, 860 N.E.2d 460, 307 Ill.Dec. 806 (2006); Chelkova v. Southland Corp., 331 Ill.App.3d 716, 729, 771 N.E.2d 1100, 265 Ill.Dec. 141 (2002). A reconsideration motion is not the place to raise a new legal theory or factual argument. River Plaza, 389 Ill.App.3d at 280; North River, 369 Ill.App.3d at 572. " 'Trial courts should not allow litigants to stand mute, lose a motion, and then frantically gather'" new evidence or legal theories to show the court that it erred in its ruling. North River, 369 Ill.App.3d at 572 (quoting Landeros v. Equity Property & Development, 321 Ill.App.3d 57, 65, 747 N.E.2d 391, 254 Ill.Dec. 351 (2001)). As a result, legal theories and factual arguments not previously made are considered waived. River Plaza, 389 Ill.App.3d at 280; North River, 369 Ill.App.3d at 572-73.
[¶69] The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. North River, 369 Ill.App.3d at 572. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Bank of America, N.A. v. Adeyiga, 2014 IL App. (1st) 131252, P 116, 390 Ill.Dec. 431, 29 N.E.3d 60.
[¶70] In its appellate briefs, State Farm does not argue that the trial court abused its discretion in denying State Farm's motion for a rehearing, nor could it, in light of the fact that State Farm's rehearing motion was based on new legal claims that it raised for the first time in the motion.
[¶71] Progressive had been raising the pro rata issue and the $40,000 issue consistently since the beginning of the lawsuit, and Progressive's arguments were met with silence by State Farm. First, on November 14, 2011, Progressive filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the three State Farm auto policies and the one Progressive policy shared coverage " on an equal basis" or " 25 percent each." The counterclaim also alleged that the $40,000 No. 1-14-0447 23 paid by the tortfeasor should be subtracted only from the total coverage provided from all the policies.
[¶72] Second, in its November 21, 2012, motion for summary judgment, State Farm did argue " even assuming arguendo [the] three State Farm *** automobile insurance policies provide underinsured motorist coverage to Andrew *** the maximum amount of coverage available to him is $500,000." Thus, both State Farm and Progressive were asking the trial court to consider the amount at issue, if the three State Farm policies were found applicable. However, State Farm chose not to also address in the alternative, if the three State Farm auto policies applied, how that coverage should be allocated or whether the $40,000 should be subtracted from each policy. State Farm chose to ignore both these issues, although they were specifically raised by Progressive in its counterclaim.
[¶73] State Farm's summary judgment motion also chose not to argue for a lack of
Page 451
coverage under the stepmother's policy on the ground that Andrew was a stepchild.
[¶74] Third, Progressive argued in its cross-motion for summary judgment, as it had in its counterclaim, both for a pro rata or 25% per policy allocation and for a subtraction of the $40,000 only from the total coverage. State Farm did not respond. No. 1-14-0447 24
[¶75] Fourth, at the hearing on the dueling motions for summary judgment, Progressive observed that " [t]here are four legal issues that have been presented to the Court" and " only one of those legal issues is contested." The one contested issue was whether Andrew was a " relative." Progressive listed the three uncontested issues as follows: (1) that the maximum total coverage was $500,000; (2) that the $40,000 paid by the tortfeaor reduced this amount to $460,000; and (3) that each of the four policies was responsible for an equal amount or 25%. State Farm agreed with the first point, but failed to make any response to the other two points.
[¶76] Thus, State Farm failed to raise the stepchild argument at any time prior to the motion for rehearing, and it consistently failed to respond to Progressive's arguments about equal sharing and the $40,000, even though State Farm had plenty of opportunities to do so.
[¶77] On appeal, State Farm argues that the " trial court did not find" that State Farm waived its arguments, and that we cannot overturn this lack of a finding absent an abuse of discretion. State Farm does not argue that the trial court found that State Farm did not waive its arguments, rather it argues that " the trial court did not find."
[¶78] At the motion for rehearing, the trial court acknowledged State Farm's waiver of these issue, but stated that it would not " base[]" its decision to deny a rehearing on waiver.
[¶79] In essence, State Farm is trying to have its newly raised claims reviewed under the lenient de novo standard used for summary judgment motions rather than the abuse-of-discretion standard applied to motions for rehearing. We will not allow this attempt to evade the proper standard of review.
[¶80] The trial court denied State Farm's motion for rehearing. State Farm does not even attempt to argue that this was an abuse of discretion, nor can we find any. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying State Farm's motion for rehearing based on State Farm's newly advanced legal claims.
[¶81] IV. First Line of the " Relative" Definition
[¶82] State Farm's first claim in its summary judgment motion, which it repeats on appeal, is: (1) that a person must satisfy both lines of the " relative" definition to qualify as a " relative" ; and (2) that Andrew did not qualify under the first line which required him to reside " primarily" with the Toigs, because he divided his time in Chicago equally between the Toigs and his mother. Since we do not find the first argument persuasive, we do not reach the second. Crump v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 961 F.2d 725, 727 (8th Cir. 1992) (since the child " was covered as a 'relative' under the second sentence of the definition," it was " unnecessary" to consider whether he qualified under the first line).
[¶83] State Farm's argument asks us to interpret the meaning of its policy. As we already observed, the construction of an insurance policy's provisions is a question of law, which we review de novo. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 108. If the words in the policy are susceptible to more than
Page 452
one reasonable interpretation, they are ambiguous and will be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drafted the policy. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 108.
[¶84] As stated, the State Farm auto policies define the term " relative" with the following two lines:
[¶85] State Farm chose to use the vague pronoun " it" in the second sentence, instead of a particularized noun. If the pronoun " it" refers back to the word " person," then the two lines are connected, with the second line expounding on the meaning of the word " person" in the first line. However, if the word " it" refers back to the word " relative," then each line is independently defining the term " relative."
[¶86] A pronoun must agree with its antecedent in person, gender and number. See St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, Literacy Education Online, Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement, http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/pronante.html (last visited Mar. 17, 2015). A person can never be an " it." A person may be a " he" or a " she" but not an " it." See Richard Turner, The Grammar Curmudgeon, English 101 Help, Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement: Basics: Basic Rule, http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/2569239/35950.html (last visited Mar. 17, 2015) (" If the antecedent is a person who could be of either gender (e.g., teacher, doctor, student), we are obligated to use 'he or she,' 'him or her,' 'his or her,' as appropriate." ). However, a term which is being defined is an " it." A term in a contract is neither a " he" or " she" but an " it." Thus, the only possible antecedent for " it" is the term being defined, which is " relative." At oral argument, State Farm agreed that " 'it' is a relative."
[¶87] State Farm also conceded as much in its answer. Progressive set forth two independent definitions of the term " relative" in its counterclaim:
" 6. The State Farm policies define 'relative' to mean a person related to the named insured or the named insured's spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who resides primarily with the named insured. [Citation.]
7. The State Farm policies also define 'relative' to include the named insured's unmarried and unemancipated child away at school." (Emphasis added.)
State Farm deemed both of these paragraphs " Admit[ted]" in its answer, thereby conceding the two definitions of " relative" in its policies.
[¶88] In essence, State Farm is trying to interpret the first line to create an exception or an exclusion to the second. State Farm asks us to read the second line as stating that the term " relative" " includes your unmarried and unemancipated child away at school," but only if he or she " resides primarily with you."
[¶89] As Progressive argued before the trial court and now before us, this interpretation could never be satisfied. If a child is " away at school," then he or she is not " resid[ing] primarily with you." Progressive argued that the only possible purpose of the second line was to cover a " child away at school, " who was then not " resid[ing] primarily with" the policy holder.
[¶90] If the meaning of " resides primarily with you " (emphasis in original) was commonly understood to include children " away at school," then there would be no
Page 453
need for the second line, and it would be superfluous. See Founders Insurance Co. v. Munoz, 237 Ill.2d 424, 436, 930 N.E.2d 999, 341 Ill.Dec. 485 (2010) ( " Where a term in an insurance policy is not defined, we afford that term its plain, ordinary and popular meaning ***." ); see also Founders, 237 Ill.2d at 433 ( " When construing the language of an insurance policy, we must assume that every provision was intended to serve a purpose." ).
[¶91] The trial court agreed with this argument, and so do we. Accord Bauer v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 WI App. 152, 295 Wis.2d 481, 720 N.W.2d 187, 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (" Were it not for this sentence, unmarried and unemancipated children away from home at school would not be insured under their parents' UIM coverage because they would be primarily residing in a college dormitory or apartment and not at home." ); Crump, 961 F.2d at 727 (" The first sentence of the policy definition of 'relative' refers to family members living at home. The second sentence provides a contrast : 'relative' also includes children in school away from home." (Emphasis added.)).
[¶92] Even if we did not agree with the trial court, we would have to find State Farm's choice to use the word " it" ambiguous, and ambiguities are construed against the drafter. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 122 ( when the policy is ambiguous, it is construed against the drafter because, " [a]fter all, the insurer chose the words used in the policy" ). Any ambiguous provision is construed " strictly" against the drafter of the policy and in favor of coverage. Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 119. " This is so because there is little or no bargaining involved in the insurance contracting process [citation], the insurer has control in the drafting process, and the policy's overall purpose is to provide coverage to the insured [citation]." Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 119. Our supreme court explained the reasoning behind this rule of construction, as follows:
" The insurance industry is powerful and closely knit. *** [M]ost policies are standard-form, are worded very similarly [citation], and are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis [citation]. Any insured, whether large and sophisticated or not, must enter into a contract with the insurer which is written according to the insurer's pleasure by the insurer. [Citation.] Generally, since little or no negotiation occurs in this process, the insurer has total control of the terms and the drafting of the contract. [Citation.] This rule of construction recognizes *** these facets of the insurance contracting process. [Citation.] *** After all, the insurer chose the words used in the policy. [Citation.]" Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 122.
[¶93] State Farm argues that its interpretation is reasonable. " However, if the words in the policy are susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, they are ambiguous [citation] and will be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drafted the policy [citations]." Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 109. See also State Farm v. Differding, 46 Ill.App.3d 15, 19, 360 N.E.2d 522, 4 Ill.Dec. 586 (1977) (" Insurers write the policies and if the language of the contract has a dual interpretation they must be charged with the ambiguity." ).
[¶94] State Farm argues that its definition is not ambiguous, although the majority of courts cited by the parties disagree
Page 454
with State Farm's interpretation that compliance with both lines of the definition is required. Drake v. Snider, 216 W.Va. 574, 608 S.E.2d 191, 196 (W.Va. 2004) ( per curiam ) (although the child did not qualify under the first line of State Farm's " relative" definition since she resided primarily with the other parent, coverage applied because she was away at school); Dwelle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 839 So.2d 897, 900 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (under an " alternative second theory," even if the child was not a resident of his parents' home, he was covered as a child away at school); Crump, 961 F.2d at 727 (since the child " was covered as a 'relative' under the second sentence of the definition," it was unnecessary to consider whether the first line also applied); State Farm v. Taussig, 227 Ill.App.3d 913, 917, 592 N.E.2d 332, 169 Ill.Dec. 845 (1992) (appellate court analyzed the two lines as independent and " alternate" sources of coverage).
[¶95] In support of its claim that its two-line definition of " relative" is not ambiguous and that both lines must apply, State Farm relies primarily on the Alabama case of State Farm v. Brown, 26 So.3d 1167 (Ala. 2009), a short per curiam order. As we explain below, Brown does not support State Farm's argument.
[¶96] State Farm's definition of " relative" in Brown is similar but not identical to the definition here. The " relative" definition in Brown stated: " 'Relative--means a person related to you or your spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who lives primarily with you. It includes your unmarried and unemancipated child away at school.'" (Emphases in original.)[4] Brown, 26 So.3d at 1169. The definition in Brown used the term " lives" rather than the term " resides."
[¶97] Although the definitions are similar, the issue in Brown was different from the issue here. In Brown, the question was whether a child, who lived at home with her mother and attended a local high school, was " away" at school. Brown, 26 So.3d at 1168. The certified question asked the supreme court to assume that the first sentence of State Farm's definition did not apply, so that coverage existed only if the child was considered " away." Brown, 26 So.3d at 1169 n.1 (it was only " the second sentence [of the 'relative' definition] that is at issue here" ). For purposes of that appeal, the court was asked to assume that the child " lives primarily" with her mother and did not live with her father, who was the policy holder. Brown, 26 So.3d at 1168-69. The short per curiam order does not state whether the father also lived locally, but it does state that the child attended the " local high school" and the issue was the application of his insurance policy. Brown, 26 So.3d at 1168.
[¶98] The Alabama court held that the child could not be considered " away" if she was living at home and that, since the parties conceded that the first sentence did not apply, she could not qualify for coverage. Brown, 26 So.3d at 1170. In Brown, State Farm argued that the two lines had to be read " conjunctively," in that the court had to determine first where the child's primary residence was, before it could determine whether she was " away" from it. Brown, 26 So.3d at 1170. In contrast, the family argued that the two lines should be read " disjunctively," in that, as long as she was " away" from her
Page 455
father's house and in school, she was " away" at school. Brown, 26 So.3d at 1170. The Alabama court agreed with State Farm that the word " away" had to be interpreted in conjunction or in light of the first sentence. Brown, 26 So.3d at 1170. Interpreting the second line in conjunction with the first line in Brown, the Alabama court reasoned that " away" had to mean that she was " away" from home. Brown, 26 So.3d at 1170.[5]
[¶99] In this appeal, State Farm focuses on the Brown court's use of the word " conjunctively" to argue that the Brown opinion stands for the proposition that both lines of the definition must apply for there to be coverage. But the opinion stands for just the opposite. If both lines had to apply for there to be coverage, then there would have been no need for the opinion at all, since the opinion started with the proposition that the first line did not apply. To the extent that Brown has persuasive value, it supports Progressive's position not State Farm's.
[¶100] State Farm also cites in support Wallace v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2007-Ohio-6373, 2007 WL 4216132, at *4 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007),[6] and argues: " Had the Ohio Court of Appeals in Wallace believed the two sentence definition of relative must be read in the disjunctive, as Progressive argues, the court wasted its time and analysis in determining that the State Farm policy 'clearly and unambiguously established a mandatory requisite of proving residency to enable UIM coverage.'" However, in Wallace, no argument was made that the teenaged child was away at school. As a result, the second line and the relationship between the two lines was not an issue and was not discussed.
[¶101] As a housekeeping matter, we observe that both parties discuss at length a 2008 memorandum opinion from a Mississippi federal district court, but it is not reported, and we will not cite an unreported case. Skokie Castings, Inc. v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 2012 IL App. (1st) 111533, P 15, 964 N.E.2d 1225, 358 Ill.Dec. 203 ( " an unreported case" is " not binding on any court" ); People v. Moore, 243 Ill.App.3d 583, 584, 611 N.E.2d 1246, 183 Ill.Dec. 598 (1993) (" the decision was unreported and of no precedential value" ). " Unreported decisions have no precedential value, and this is even more true for decisions from foreign jurisdictions." American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Plunkett, 2014 IL App. (1st) 131631, P 38, 383 Ill.Dec. 393, 14 N.E.3d 676; Burnette v. Stroger, 389 Ill.App.3d 321, 329, 905 N.E.2d 939, 329 Ill.Dec. 101 (2009); West American Insurance Co. v. J.R. Construction Co., 334 Ill.App.3d 75, 82, 777 N.E.2d 610, 267 Ill.Dec. 807 (2002) (a " foreign, unreported decision" is " of no precedential value" ). Specifically, with respect to unpublished federal cases, this court has held that they do not carry any authority before an Illinois court. Lyons v. Ryan, 324 Ill.App.3d 1094, 1107 n.11,
Page 456
756 N.E.2d 396, 258 Ill.Dec. 414 (2001) (" unreported federal court orders" are not " any kind of authority before an Illinois court" ); Sompolski v. Miller, 239 Ill.App.3d 1087, 1093, 608 N.E.2d 54, 180 Ill.Dec. 932 (1992) (" we decline" to follow " an unreported Federal district court decision" ).
[¶102] In sum, for coverage to exist, a child who is away at school does not have to also prove that he or she primarily resides with the policy holder. First, State Farm's use of the word " it" rendered the " relative" definition ambiguous as to whether compliance with both lines is required, and any ambiguities must be construed against the drafter. Second, if compliance with both lines was required, the second line could never be satisfied, since a child cannot be both " away" at school while primarily residing with the policy holder. Third, the overwhelming majority of the precedent cited by the parties supports this conclusion. Drake, 216 W.Va. at 579 ( per curiam ) (although the child did not qualify under the first line of State Farm's " relative" definition since she resided primarily with the other parent, coverage applied because she was away at school); Dwelle, 839 So.2d at 900 (under an " alternative second theory," even if the child was not a resident of his parents' home, he was covered as a child away at school); Crump, 961 F.2d at 727 (since the child " was covered as a 'relative' under the second sentence of the definition," it was unnecessary to consider whether the first line also applied); State Farm v. Taussig, 227 Ill.App.3d 913, 917, 592 N.E.2d 332, 169 Ill.Dec. 845 (1992) (appellate court analyzed the two lines as independent and " alternate" sources of coverage); Bauer, 720 N.W.2d at 190 (" Were it not for this sentence, unmarried and unemancipated children away from home at school would not be insured under their parents' UIM coverage because they would be primarily residing in a college dormitory or apartment and not at home." ); Brown, 26 So.3d at 1168-69 (see discussion of case supra in text).
[¶103] V. Second Line: " Away at School"
[¶104] Next we consider the second line of the definition and whether Andrew was " away at school."
[¶105] Before the trial court, State Farm did not offer arguments concerning whether Andrew was " away at school." However, it did argue that, because he registered to vote in Colorado, he did not " reside primarily" with his parents in Chicago. On appeal, State Farm has added that the voter registration is also a reason why he was not " away at school." In other words, Colorado was his residence, so he was not " away."
[¶106] The undisputed facts are that, while at school in Colorado, Andrew was " away" from his parents in Chicago, from the policy holder, and from where he lived before he left for school. Crump, 961 F.2d at 727 (relying on the dictionary definition of " away" to interpret State Farm's " relative" definition, the court held that a child was " away" when " 'absent from' " his or her parents' home).
[¶107] On appeal, State Farm points to the following facts to argue that Andrew was not " away" : (1) he attended boarding school outside of Illinois, starting at age 16 and prior to attending college; and (2) he registered to vote in Colorado and had a Colorado driver's license. State Farm argues that Andrew lacked an intent to return to Chicago after graduation and, therefore, he was not " away" from it.
[¶108] First, with respect to boarding school, the policy says " school" not " college" or " university." Interpreting the same " relative" definition at issue here, the Drake court observed that " the term
Page 457
'school' was not defined by the policies" and thus the term was given its ordinary dictionary meaning. Drake, 608 S.E.2d at 195-96 . As a result, the court held that the term " school," as used in the State Farm auto policy, includes " an elementary school, junior high school, high school, trade school, college and university." Drake, 608 S.E.2d at 197 . Thus, when Andrew was at boarding school, he was " away at school" for purposes of the policy, and that continued when in college. The Eighth Circuit in Crump observed that neither the word " away" in the dictionary nor the word " away" in State Farm auto's policy " contain any time *** limitations." Crump, 961 F.2d at 727.
[¶109] Second, State Farm argues that Andrew lost coverage when he registered to vote in Colorado and obtained a Colorado driver's license because he did not have an intent to return to Chicago. However, the policy says none of this. It specifically excludes emancipated and married children but it does not state that it also excludes children who obtain voter registration or driver's licenses while away. When construing an insurance policy, a court tries to give effect to the intent of the parties at the time the policy was issued. Founders Ins. Co. v. Am. Country Ins. Co, 366 Ill.App.3d 64, 69, 851 N.E.2d 120, 303 Ill.Dec. 222 (2006); see also Outboard Marine, 154 Ill.2d at 122; Gaudina, 2014 IL App. (1st) 131264, ¶ 17, 380 Ill.Dec. 418, 8 N.E.3d 588[7] Andrew is not a party to the contract, so his intent is not at issue. Cf. Dwelle, 839 So.2d at 901 (" the lower court erroneously relied on [the child's] statement of future residency intent in deciding he was not entitled" to coverage under his parents' policies). Parents would be surprised to learn that, without any language to that effect in the contract, their college students' voter registration and driver's licenses would strip their children of coverage. State Farm does not cite a single case where a college student lost insurance coverage due to his or her voter registration or driver's license.[8] State Farm asks us to be the first.
[¶110] Almost all the cases cited by State Farm on this point are election cases. Stein v. County Board of School Trustees, 40 Ill.2d 477, 479-80, 240 N.E.2d 668 (1988) (the issue was whether a petition was signed by two-thirds of the legal voters); Anderson v. Pifer, 315 Ill. 164, 167, 146 N.E. 171 (1924) (the issue concerned a contested election); People v. Baumgartner, 355 Ill.App.3d 842, 848,
Page 458
823 N.E.2d 1144, 291 Ill.Dec. 558 (2005) (the question was whether defendant had filed a false statement of candidacy, and it turned on the definition of residence in the Election Code for the purposes of voter registration); Merrill v. Shearston, 73 Colo. 230, 214 P. 540, 541 (Colo. 1923) (this was an election case where the issue was whether hospital inmates could vote). State Farm does not explain why the goals and purposes of the Election Code and insurance law are so closely aligned that the definition and rules contained in one should also govern the other.
[¶111] The one non-election case cited by State Farm on this point is Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Gitelson, 344 Ill.App.3d 888, 801 N.E.2d 1064, 280 Ill.Dec. 119 (2003), and State Farm cites it to argue that Andrew must prove an intent to return. The question in Gitelson concerned whether a " family member" presently resided in the insured's " household," and we stated that " the controlling factor in determining [her present] residency is intent." Gitelson, 344 Ill.App.3d at 890, 892. However, in the case at bar, we know Andrew was not presently dwelling in his parents' household; he was in Colorado. Gitelson does not stand for the proposition that a student who is " away" must prove an intent to return. There was no issue in Gitelson about whether the injured person was " away at college," because the definition of " family member" at issue there did not have that line and, in any event, the family member in question had already graduated college. Thus, Gitelson does not support the proposition that a college student who is " away" must prove an intent to return. See also Dwelle, 839 So.2d at 901 (" the lower court erroneously relied on [the child's] statement of future residency intent in deciding he was not entitled" to coverage under his parents' policies).
[¶113] In sum, we conclude, first, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for rehearing based on legal claims that were not previously advanced. Second, Andrew is covered under the Toigs' policies as a child away from school.
[¶114] Affirmed.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Aviation Performance Solutions is using one of its graduates as an example of how upset prevention and recovery skills can be used to save an aircraft and prevent loss of life. According to the company, the pilot of a C-12 -- the Army's equivalent of the Beech King Air 200 -- encountered severe clear ice during a training mission, which caused the aircraft to shudder while flying at 6,000 feet. "You have to aggressively and correctly reduce angle of attack in a stall or you may not recover," the pilot said.
Full Story:AIN Online

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Motorcycle rider injured in crashOctober 07,2012Motorcycle rider
injured in crash
MIDDLETOWN SPRINGS A motorcycle rider was injured after crashing into the back of a car, police said.
Jeffrey Greene, 34, of Middle Granville, N.Y., was riding a 1992 Harley-Davidson motorcycle east on West Street behind a 2001 Pontiac Sunfire driven by Fernando Parker, 52, of Middletown Springs, at about 4:10 p.m. Friday, according to Vermont State Police.
Parker stopped to make a left turn into a driveway, police said, and Greene was unable to stop his motorcycle before it hit the cars rear bumper.
The motorcycle tipped over on its right side and slid into a ditch on the westbound shoulder of West Street, about 12 to 15 feet from the crash, police said.
Greene fell off the motorcycle and slid 8 to 10 feet on the road, police said. He was taken to the Rutland Regional Medical Center, where he was treated for cuts and bruises.
Parker, who was wearing a seat belt, was unhurt.
State police were assisted by the Middletown Springs Fire Department and the Poultney Rescue Squad.MORE IN This Just InBARRE TOWN Firefighters faced a collection of adverse conditions as a house on Granitville Road... Full StoryWILLISTON Police are asking for help identifying the man who tried to steal roughly $800 worth ... Full StoryNEWBURY Police said somebody stole booze and change from a Welch Road residence. Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed


text:
Imagination Box
Üye Girişi yapın, temin süresi ve fiyatını size bildirelim.
Üye Girişi yapın, sizi bu ürün stoklarımıza girdiğinde bilgilendirelim.
Temin süremiz 28 - 42 iş günü
Yayıncı Faber and Faber ( 05 / 2015 ) ISBN 9780571311651 | İngilizce | 304 Sayfa | Türler 7-10 Yaş Okuma Kitapları | 11-14 Yaş Okuma Kitapları
There is a box. Anything you imagine will appear inside. You have one go, one chance to create anything you want. What would you pick?" That's exactly the question ten-year-old Timothy Hart gets to answer after discovering The Imagination Box. The greatest toy on earth. The top-secret contraption transforms his life but when the box's inventor, Professor Eisenstone, goes missing, Tim knows he has to investigate. With the help of a talking finger monkey called Phil, he sets out to find the professor. In order to rescue his friend, he must face his darkest fears and discover the true potential of his own mind. This stunning debut is first in an exciting new trilogy for readers aged 9+.


text:
Copenhagen Cafe Shooting Likely Targeted Cartoonist
A shooting at a Copenhagen cafe is believed to have targeted a controversial cartoonist known for drawing the Prophet Muhammad in the past.By Jake Godin | February 14, 2015
A suspected assassination attempt in Copenhagen on a cartoonist known for drawing the Prophet Muhammad left one dead and three officers injured.
The attack occurred at a cafe that was hosting a free speech event. According to Danish police, there were two gunmen dressed in black. Both fled in a Volkswagen Polo which was later found abandoned.
Lars Vilks, a controversial Swedish cartoonist known for a 2007 caricature of Muhammad dressed as a dog, was at the seminar and is believed to have been the target of the attack. He survived after hiding in the cafe's cold storage unit. (Video via SVT1)


text:
Eight year old saddlebred gelding. Red roan in color. 14.1 hands high. Suitable for confident beginner but not children as gait is fast. Excellent trail…$2,500 CAD
**Make an Offer - MUST SELL** Owner is selling due to moving over seas UPDATE: On November 1, 2014, Harry was awarded as the American Saddlebred…SOLD
If you are looking for a great riding horse check out this guy! DOB:1999 SEX: Gelding BREED: American Saddlebred/Arabian …SOLD
April Mist is a flashy chestnut with flaxen mane and tail and 3 white socks. She is 16h and 10 years old. April is versatile and a great all-round horse…SOLD


text:
Merrimac Wisconsin Golf Courses
|Devil's Head Lodge
Additional Golf Course Reviews:
|Paganica Golf Course -- A Great Course for anyone
|Review by: Dick glenn
|This course has many challenges but they arent very hard to overcome. It has great greens and a variety of trees and water hazerds that com into play on seven holes.
|From oconomowoc, WI USA


text:
Is this restaurant good for large groups?
Is this restaurant good for lunch?
Is this restaurant good for dinner?
Are the prices at this restaurant high or expensive?
Is this restaurant good for local cuisine?
Is this restaurant good for scenic view?
Does this restaurant have a TV?
Does this restaurant offer valet parking?
Does this restaurant have private dining rooms?
Does this restaurant offer validated parking?
Thanks for helping!
You always get very good quality and beautiful served for a nice price. Service is also top! Love this place.
Excellent service, very good food served in a beautiful place.
One of the best restaurants in Turnhout.
Was here on a business trip, many Restaurants closed on Wednesdays in Belgium... Dicovered this one on Tripadvisor, and it was just GREAT! From the scallops, to the seabass, their white wines by the glass and last but not least the excellent Espresso! Definitely worth a try if you are in the area.
We had a business lunch in this restaurant and the food was of a very good quality. But the waiting time between courses was a bit long, we were there for total of 2.15 hrs only for a lunch and we had to go back to work afterwards so we were in a time constraint so that is something they...
Very good restaurant. Menu is fair priced. Well done! One of the better I visited this year. On Mondays you can have suprise menu for cheaper price.
Was worried about coming due to mixed reviews but the place is truly excellent. Started with Lobster croquettes, Veal with summer truffles on seasoned home made pasta for main and a lemon Marscapone for desert. Chose St Aubin as the wine which was superb and well priced (much more expensive in the UK).
It's not cheap but the quality and...
Had one of the nicest steaks I have ever eaten at this restaurant, the service was excellent and the attention to detail is something that's not overlooked. Very nice place.
Middle of the road restaurant.
Cod on (1 and a halve ) asparagus and crushed potato.
My wife enjoyed her sole and disagrees with me on the qaulity of this restaurant.
Still very expensive!
We had a nice dinner in the terrace.. the restaurant have a very nice ambiance. The staff are very friendly and the food is good..also good wine ..
Our friends and us had a delicious dinner at Marche 17, one of the better restaurants in Turnhout. We had the 5 course dinner with accompanying wines. We visited this restaurant a couple of times before and were never disappointed. Well balanced dishes and usually good wines. Make sure that you don't arrive too late as they speed up the...
Own or manage this property? Claim your listing for free to respond to reviews, update your profile and much more.


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Free Shipping + Free Returns on Orders $50+* Give 25, Get 25
Availability: In stock
Add New Gift Registry
Sleep some more. Say hello to sweet dreams with this luxurious down-alternative mattress topper for your dorm bed. This no frills fiberbed enhances the comfort of your bed and fits perfectly under your fitted sheet or a fitted mattress pad so it will not shift around during your sleep. This synthetic mattress pad will take your college experience to the next level.
Fabric: 198 Thread Count, 100% cotton woven twill. , border box design, double stitched edges, white without piping, filling: poly pearls, filling weight: 86 oz
- Consider this a smart investment. After all, getting your beauty sleep is a must!


text:
Prices, specials, features and availability subject to change.
Contact for details
Large 2 bedroom in Gardner
Hot water included
Cats ok
24 hour maintenance
Professionally managed
Call Catherine to view 978-361-5708
Pets Accepted. Cats Allowed. Call for service animal policy.
Don't have a Rent.com account? Create one.
Creating an account allows you to acccess your saved and contacted properties on any device. Already have an account?
Log In
We are experiencing technical difficulties at the moment. Please try again later.


text:
Create New List×
- Description
The 1-year, 3-PC, Norton Internet Security Version 21.0 CD from Symantec gives you complete peace of mind for keeping you safe when you surf, shop, and bank online. The Norton Community Watch tracks virtually every file on the Internet for comprehensive global threat monitoring, and Spam Blocking keeps your mailbox free of unwanted, dangerous, and fraudulent emails. The Internet Protection System scours websites and social networking sites for suspicious links and content to identify social networking scams. In addition, anti-phishing technology blocks fraudulent phishing sites set up to steal your personal information. It comes with PC Tools Registry Mechanic software.
Note Returns Accepted
- Additional Information
Additional Information
SKU TECSNOR-INSE3PC2016-1PC Bar Code N/A Manufacturer Norton Dimensions N/A Color N/A Model N/A Series N/A Voltage N/A Type Internet Security Quantity 1 Piece Warranty N/A Sheet Capacity N/A Capacity N/A Security Level N/A Material N/A Body Color N/A Display N/A Width N/A Shape N/A Size N/A Size N/A Thickness N/A Country of Manufacture N/A
- Payment and Shipping
- Payment
- Credit Cards / Debit Cards
- Cash on Delivery
- Shipping Cost
Above 150 AED Free Delivery anywhere in the UAE Below 150 AED Flat rate of 20 AED anywhere in the UAE
- Delivery
2-3 Business Days Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah 3-4 Business Days Ajman, Ras Al Khaimah, Fujairah and Al Ain
- Reviews


text:
Winter 2016 is fast approaching, earlier this year I worked with Fylf Music on the B:Linda Project The Album release which is now available at www.fylfmusic.com The B:Linda Project - The Album is available as a physical release at special offer price £9.99 and also a digital download. The physical Double CD consists of 10 Belinda Carlisle Dance Remakes featuring Radio Edits plus 2 original tracks on CD1 and Extended Club Mixes on CD2. The Digital download bundle includes the 10 Belinda Carlisle Dance Remakes Radio Edits, the Extended Mixes and a Heavenly Pop Album Megamix mixed by yours truly David Strong. For all my other megamixes you can follow me and/or subscribe to my podcasts directly on Podomatic or you can also find them on iTunes.
Music has always been my passion every since I can remember, from the Accordion lessons my Dad took me to when I was 6 years old, to the piano my Dad gave me when I was 12. I can't help remembering myself as a boy in the late 70s dancing and miming to Abba, little did I know at that time where music would take me. I have always been captivated by music, then the 80s came and so too the 'Kids from Fame' I was obsessed I even took dance lessons. In 1985 I found a new obsession "High Energy" music which took me to a whole new world. It transported me to place filled with excitement, pleasure, energy, acceptance and love. My love of music is my greatest passion and it has connected me to so many wonderful people. Music rescues me when I am sad, it wraps its arms around me and helps me escape and relive some of those great memories I have shared. Music soothes my soul and it helps to me to be free....
My musical tastes vary, I like mixing the best of Uplifting/Funky/Circuit/Vocal House, Bigroom Anthems, Hi-NRG, Disco and Euro Dance.
Check out my other social media profiles below for all the latest updates, podcast details and much more.


text:
Yummy came to the center in 1998 along with Lovey, Jessica, and
Wei-Linn. He and Lovey were best buddies. Yummy enjoyed sleeping
and spending the majority of his day in the bed. Breakfast and
dinner were his favorite times. His sixteen year old body would
jump to life when there was food to be eaten. Yummy was one of the
most agreeable dogs you could imagine. He never bothered the other
pets and was happy to have attention at any time. We will all miss
his sweet temperament.
Spider came to the center with her kitty buddy, Phoenix, and
five dogs in 2008. She is incredibly beautiful. Spider is also very
affectionate and loves attention. We are having a great time with
» Learn more about our Residents
Please send me the following information (check all that apply):
You have no one to care for your beloved pet after you have passed on. This unique home for animals is dedicated to meeting that need. Your planned gift will assure excellent care for the life of your pet.
Stevenson Companion Animal Life-Care Center | College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences
TAMU 4461, College Station, Texas 77843-4461 | Phone: (979) 845-1188 | Fax: (979) 845-1425
© 2002-2012 All rights reserved, Texas A&M University Trademark - Website by CVM Communications.
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 Valid XHTML Valid CSS Valid RSS


text:
Do you enjoy playing pool in good company? Our group is now playing on Monday evenings (twice monthly) at Le Forum Sports Bar 3rd Floor. Depending on the number of players, we will play in teams or individually beginning at 19h30 until 21h30 . The cost is $7.00 per hour per table. Half the price we would normally pay, would be $14.00 per hour per table. We will split the bill at the end of the night between the participants at a cost of $5.00 per person. So come one, come all and "Let's play Pool".
Please confirm at least the day before so I can reserve the number of tables that we will need and be able to play in the same area of the pool room. Should you decide that you cannot make it that night, please either change your RSVP or send me a quick message on the Meet Up Website at your earliest convenience.
Drinks Special for Monday (A Pitcher of Beer Molsen Export Ale @ $13.00.)
Jack Lerman
No Experience necessary
For more information contact Jack[masked]
Payments you make go to the organizer, not to Meetup. You must make refund requests to the organizer.
Meetup members, Log in
By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy


text:
Union politicking is expected to heat up this summer within the ranks of the Writers Guild of America, West, as members prepare for a September election that could well be nasty in nature, with the potential to drastically alter the makeup of the WGAW's elected officers and governing board.This year's election comes at a time when union leaders are having a number of face-offs with a vocal and combative faction of dissenters. Exactly how large or influential that faction is remains to be seen. Their latest clash — which landed the guild in federal court — concerns a suit filed by three members against the WGAW's board of directors and executive director over requiring members to sign a users agreement to use the union's electronic bulletin board. The suit was filed to nullify the agreement. Yet that fight now appears to be moot, since the board, concerned in recent years over potential legal liability, voted to shut down all public forums on the BBS and rescind the users agreement just days after the suit was filed. Back in court The matter will be back in court today, with the trio of litigants asking a federal court judge to force the guild to restore use of the public forums. Ironically, the outcome of today's hearing could have a critical effect on the election in September, as many members say that the BBS was one of the more effective ways for people to campaign for office. "Without the BBS, people will have to go back to the old-fashioned method of getting out there and schmoozing, which can be very time-consuming," noted one writer. Other areas of controversy in recent months have concerned whether or not the Guild will bring non-unionized animation writers into the fold, a series of proposed credit changes and the proposal to change the entire voting procedure. In the latter dispute, one key area of disagreement concerns whether the guild's executive staff and exec director Brian Walton should have the ability to voice opinions on future election amendments. While the upcoming officer/board election will not be held until Sept. 21, the lengthy process is already under way with the recent selection of two nominating committees, one to choose candidates for the board of directors and the other to nominate officer candidates. Among the positions that will be up for grabs are president, vice president and secretary-treasurer. There are also eight seats on the board with terms soon expiring. Those appointed to the board nominating committee are: Katherine Coker, Robert P. King, Peter Lefcourt, Brenda Lilly, David Rich, Tom Rickman, John Riley, Adam Rodman, Susan Sebastian, John Wirth and Bryce Zabel. The officers nominating committee consists of: Ron Austin, Christopher Knopf, Ann Marcus, Daryl G. Nickens, Arthur Sellers, Vida Spears and Greg Strangis. "Ideally the nominating committee should pick candidates with diverse views, set up a real horse race," said another member. "Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't." The way the Guild elections work is that the nominating committees choose official candidates, while other aspirants can run by petition. For those who run by petition, the BBS can be a crucial tool in getting their views out to members in a cost-effective fashion. In order to be eligible, members must be of current working status and in good standing on their union membership for the year preceding the September election.
WGAW race heats up
2016-2017 Oscar Predictions
Most Popular
PewDiePie Pulls In $15 Million, Again Topping List of Highest-Paid YouTube Stars
Sundance Film Festival Unveils 2017 Premieres, Midnight, Spotlight Sections
'Westworld' Creators on Why HBO Drama Won't Return Before 2018
'Green Hornet' Star Van Williams Dies at 82
Let's Face It: Smartwatches Are Dead
Variety Jobs
Creative Development CoordinatorTriptyk Studios, New York, New York
Account/Project Coordinator (Ad Agency)Petrol Advertising, Burbank, California
Media SpecialistBridgewater Associates, Westport, Connecticut
Executive Director, Aspen FilmCompany Confidential, Aspen, Colorado
Associate Director, YouTuber & Gamer PartnershipsSave the Children, Fairfield, Connecticut
See More Jobs


text:
Now that 2014 has officially come to a close, it's time to start thinking about what's in store this year.
Here we take a look a few of the golfers we're planning to watch in 2015.
Michelle Wie
Obviously, we're going to be paying attention to the reigning U.S. Women's Open Champion. She won the Lotte Championship in April before claiming her first major win here in June. Wie's Open victory seems to have given the golfer a new energy. We're excited to see how she'll use it in 2015.


text:
You are here
Account Manager - Data Centre Automation
Bullet points
- Manage the key accounts in the ASEAN
- Leading global software provider
About Our Client
Our client is a global leader in software solutions. With annual revenue close to five billion dollars, they are heavily vested in the Asia Pacific region.
In the last two years, a lot of focus has been placed in maximising the sales effectiveness within this market and as part of the continued investment in talent, they are looking for an Account Manager - Data Centre Automation ('DCA') to lead their accounts in ASEAN.
This is a permanent role for a firm that is focused on selling DCA solutions into strategic, enterprise & non-named prospect accounts.
Job Description
Reporting to the Regional Sales Director, the success of the Account Manager role will be measured on the following criteria:
- Meeting revenue goals each quarter
- Growing the number of new accounts
- Cross selling to create bigger deals and hence, a larger coverage of territory
Besides, you will be responsible for the following:
- Drive the entire sales process: prioritise and target top accounts, identify solutions, negotiate product pricing and contracts, and close the sale through contract completion
- Build an effective pipeline and articulate a vision that resonates with the customer
- Qualify, generate, and execute on opportunities that provide profitable revenue
- Create customised solutions for the key accounts in ASEAN
- Be a subject matter expert on DCA
The Successful Applicant
The successful Account Manager, DCA will need to demonstrate the following skills and attributes;
- Bachelors Degree in IT or a relevant discipline from a reputed university
- Minimum of 5 years of account management experience in ASEAN/APAC
- Strong track record of having sold data centre automation solutions
- Demonstrated ability to develop relationships across teams and with senior (C-level) executives
- Strong ability to guide decision making in business solutions
- No obstacle for travelling
Our client offers you an opportunity to be in a Principal environment, dealing with flagship solutions but still operates in a matrix (lean) method. Keeping internal processes simple and heavily encouraging open communication is a key focus for the management.
What's on Offer
Our client offers you an opportunity to be in a Principal environment, dealing with flagship solutions but still operates in a matrix (lean) method. Keeping internal processes simple and heavily encouraging open communication is a key focus for the management.
- The role requires managing some of the most important accounts for the group so it is an excellent opportunity for you to get visibility with the leadership group.
- The maximum earnings in this role will be circa SGD 200,000 on a 50-50 split. However, we are open to negotiation based on the candidate's ability and attitude.


text:
Featured property
Featured property
4 Bedrooms Detached House for sale
England Avenue, Blackburn, BB2
Stunning detached home in sought after location this four bedroom executive style home boasts family sized accommodation comprising two reception rooms, conservatory, kitchen breakfast…
A very attractive, modern detached house situated in this much sought after residential development on fernhurst farm, local amenities including the popular redeemer c of e primary…
4 Bedrooms Detached House for sale
Spacious *** 4 bedroom detached property * located on the very desireable oakdale/fernhurst development * spacious lounge * fitted kitchen * dining room * utility room * downstairs…
Bolton Road, Blackburn, Lancashire
An excellent opportunity for prospective purchasers who require land/workspace adjacent to their property. this substantial garden fronted end terrace house which provides spacious…
£110,000 Offers Over
4 Bedrooms Semi Detached House for sale
Bolton Road, Ewood, Blackburn, Lancashire
>>> exceptionally sized semi detached property set over 4 stories in popular ewood area
3 Bedrooms End Of Terrace House for sale
Bolton Road, Blackburn, Lancashire
The express estate agency is proud to offer this realistically priced opportunity all interest and offers are invited.
Internal inspection is recommended to fully appreciate this deceptively spacious garden fronted mid terrace in this popular and convenient residential locality at ewood. the property…
£75,000 Offers Over
2 Bedrooms End Of Terrace House for sale
Vincent Street, Ewood, Blackburn, Lancashire
This well presented end terrace property is an ideal first time purchase and is offered with no onward chain, situated in the ewood area of blackburn close to local shops and transport…
Share with your friends
Marketed by:
Ainsworth Lord Estates Ltd, Darwen
49 Market Street
Tel: See phone number 01254 760660
Website: Go to Agent Website


text:
0day 0:0:0 Left
People who love this item are also interested inSee More >>
Luxury Golden Floral Printing Champagne Sheer & Shading Cloth Curtain SetUSD $ 124.89
European Style Contemporary Luxury Jacquard Grommet Top CurtainUSD $ 104.59
Vibrant Pink Mauve Grommet Top Custom CurtainUSD $ 87.09
Luxury Golden Sheer and Shading Cloth Grommet Top SetsUSD $ 98.79
Romantic Purple Floral Pattern Grommet Top CurtainUSD $ 70.59
Fabulous Unique Boat Printing Grommet Top Two-piece Custom CurtainUSD $ 49.79
Gorgeous Lake Green Gradient Color Custom Shading CurtainUSD $ 104.49
Fantastic Blue And Gray Joint Color Decorative Border Design Custom CurtainUSD $ 119.19
Including: Jacquard Shade Cloth
Material: Polyester Cotton
Usage:Living Room and Bedroom
Style: Modern Decoration
Color: The Same as Picture
Piece: Two Panels
This curtain can be made to measure.Just choose Custom Size and input the curtain size.
Notice:1.Each set of curtains contains two panels. If the size we provide is 100 inches wide x 48 inches long,
then each panel measures 50 inches wide x 48 inches long.
2.We suggest that you choose a curtain width 2 times wider than the width of the pole or track to create folds.
For example, if the pole or track is 50 inches, then select a curtain width of 100 inches.
Due to differences in monitor settings, there may be a slight variation in color on screen,versus the actual material.
No one has consulted this product.
|E-mail Address *
|This will be used to sign into your account.
|Password *
|Must have 6 to 30 characters and no spaces.
|Re-type Password *
I accept
Terms of Use and
Security and Privacy of Beddinginn.com


text:
This isnt even the first instance of me mentioning it, and it was before your post. Trust me. I still remember Jerg telling me he'd try to do that at some point. The velour top mod. It wasnt until I mentioned it that he got the idea. Of course, I only mentioned it, not did any modding myself.
Why do I know this? Because I've been very vocal about velour topped pleather pads for ages, even before the HE400 pad insanity. I wanted it done for my D7000s which I owned before the HE400.
Don't worry dude I trust you. I must have gotten the idea from your posts, but I believe I was the first to actually make the modded pads as you can see from my links. Anyway I didn't mean to start something lol, it's not like Hifiman will actually send the person with the original idea/implementation a pair?


text: More indulgent confessions: As you now know, I love celebrity gossip. I subsequently was beside myself when I discovered the Celebrity Baby Blog. Not only do I like the site because it is run by a fellow mama, but this mama does a great job with her team to suss out all the latest on celebrity mamas and babies. Talk about doubling your pleasure!


text: Terminator Teaser Trailer is Seizure-inducing Robot CarnageAdrian Covert7/16/08 7:59pmFiled to: terminatorTerminator Salvation TrailerTerminator SalvationMoviesTrailers39EditPromoteShare to KinjaToggle Conversation toolsGo to permalinkThis flash-happy Terminator 4 — ahem, Terminator Salvation — teaser trailer posted on io9 teaches us the film will have skull crushing, robots running around everywhere, explosions and Christian Bale looking really, really confused. Then it pulls a "One More Thing..." and breaks out the AQUA KILL-BOT, which looked pretty epic for the half second of which you could see half its body. Whoa. [io9] Gear from Kinja DealsBestsellers: Contigo Autoseal West Loop Travel MugGet The Most From Amazon Prime PantryBuy a PS4 For $249, Get a Year of PlayStation Plus For FreeReply39 repliesLeave a reply


text:
Triumph & Disaster - Rock & Roll Suicide Face Scrub
Regular exfoliation with a well balanced and complete face scrub like Rock & Roll Suicide will remove build up of unwanted material, cleaning out dirty pores and revealing the fresh layers of good skin underneath. Infused with a unique natural fragrance called 'Smoke and Wood'.
Volcanic Ash & Green Clay
100 mL


text:
Visit our other Wisconsin Historical Society websites!
Refine or narrow your results by clicking any term in the gray boxes below.
Expand your results by removing any breadcrumb in a gray outlined box above. Click on the blue "X" to remove the term.
Narrow your results by entering a keyword into the search box above. Then click the "Search Within" checkbox, then click on the orange "Search" button.
If you did not find what you are looking for or you did not get any results, try changing your search term(s). See our Search Help page for more tips.
Date: 1938-07
Description: At a small sawmill near Shell Lake, farmers shovel sawdust which will be mixed with a whey product and applied to fields for grasshopper eradication during...
Date: 1934
Description: Two workmen stack crates of cranberries in an open air drying shed. The original caption which was supplied by the Agriculture Department noted that Wiscon...
Date: 1934-09
Description: Three men, in waders, harvesting cranberries by hand with cranberry rakes. In the background other harvesting teams are visible, as well as crates of harve...
Date: 1885 ca.
Description: View of Shell Lake looking towards the sawmills.
Date: 1920 ca.
Description: View of frame church in a pastoral landscape.
Date: 1905 ca.
Description: Exterior view of the Shell Lake Roller Milling Company with a man seated on a horse-drawn wagon outside its entrance.
Description: Hand-colored image of two men loading cranberries in crates into an open air drying shed shortly after harvest.
Date: 1885
Description: View of Shell Lake before a fire on December 3, 1889 which swept Main Street and destroyed more than twenty business places.
Date: date unknown
Description: Colorized photographic postcard view of a lawn with stone terraces and birch trees leading down to a lake on the left. There is a cabin in the background n...
Date: 1953-12-08
Description: Portrait of seven members of Shriners youth groups in formal dress; the boys were in the De Molay club and the girls were in the Rainbow Girls club. Some...
Description: View of a residential street.
Description: Exterior view of a high school with multiple figures seated and standing on the lawn in front of it.
Date: 1941
Description: This 1941 map covers Washburn County, Wisconsin, as well as western Sawyer, eastern Burnett, and northeastern Polk counties. It shows the locations of tour...
Description: View of a main street in Shell Lake with a hardware store and post office visible on the left and people standing along the sidewalks.
Description: Community Fair of the Bashaw Valley Farmers Club. E.L. Lutcher, head of the farmers institutes program of the agricultural extension, described the area a...
Date: 1906 ca.
Description: Exterior view of the Omaha Depot.
Description: Fisherman cooking on campfire at the edge of a river.
Date: 1914 ca.
Description: This early 20th century map shows the township and range system, sections, railroads, roads, lakes, wetlands, and streams in the western Sawyer County town...
Description: View of Shell Lake.
If you didn't find the material you searched for, our Library Reference Staff can help.
Call our reference desk at 608-264-6535 or email us at:
© 1996-2016 Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706


text:
Home >> Write >> Relationship >> Teen Issues >> Drugs
Drugs, drugs, drugs. So how do you talk to your teens about which drugs are good and which are bad? Drugs are a touchy subject these days, especially in the United States. The main thing to remember is that you can't control your teens forever. You can only hope that you've taught them well so that they can make the right decision on the own.
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Some teens do drugs from time to time and manage to do fine. For many teens, drug use is just a phase that doesn't last for life. However, there's always the danger of teen drug addiction. Once a teen develops a drug addiction, it can be very difficult to help them. This of course depends a lot on the kind of drug they're addicted to. It's not likely that your teen will become addicted to heroin in high school under any half-normal circumstances, but it does happen, and it is very different to help a heroin addict to kick their addiction. One of the biggest challenges is getting your teen to allow you to help them.
Prescription Drugs
Some people have access to prescription drugs, either through their job, if they work at a hospital or dentist's office for instance, or because the drugs have been prescribed to them by their doctor, and sell their prescription drugs on the street for a high price. A lot of these prescription drugs include things like morphine and other potent pain killers.
Illegal Drugs
Don't think for a second that illegal drugs are difficult for teenagers to come by just because they're illegal. Chances are, your teenager can get any kind of illegal drugs they want from their high school. And since your teens will certainly have easy access to illegal drugs, it's more important to focus on educating them about different drugs, their effects, and associated risks.
Drugs and Alcohol
Some teens find that certain drugs work more effectively when taken with alcohol. You should make sure your teen is aware of the risks of mixing drugs and alcohol. Some drugs have dangerous interactions with alcohol. The reason that a lot of drugs shouldn't be taken with alcohol is because your living can only handle so many toxins at once. Sometimes a drug is soluble in alcohol, so when taken with alcohol they disperse into the bloodstream and take effect faster. One especially important thing to talk to your teen about is drugs and alcohol at house parties. Often, bars a lot safer environment for teens doing drugs or drinking alcohol because there are lots of people around and few places to hide. At a house party however, where there's usually plenty of alcohol, someone could slip date rape drugs into a girl's drink and there's be plenty of rooms to and places to hide out to sexually assault someone. Frat parties are notorious for that sort of thing. In fact, fraternities are based on a long history of gang rape. Today, universities and guilty frat boys blame this behaviour on rugs and alcohol; a weak excuse since many people drink and do drugs and don't feel the urge to abduct and rape young girls.
Cough Syrup
Cough syrup abuse has become a serious problem in high schools around the world. Young high school kids who can't afford illegal drugs or don't have access to them may resort to drinking over the counter cough syrup to get high. Cough syrup can also be a dangerous drug if misused. It just shows that kids can get drugs just about anywhere, and that's why it's important for parents to talk to their teens about using drugs.
Though most anti-marijuana propaganda makes false claims about the dangers of smoking marijuana, there are a few important things you should know about marijuana. Marijuana doesn't make people angry or violent, but it can make you dopey and lazy. Of course, this is a temporary effect of marijuana. Though marijuana is not a physically addictive drug, many people get hooked on the feeling of euphoria they get from marijuana, which can seriously affect your lifestyle. Though some regular marijuana smokers manage to function, others let the drug take over their lives and spend the better part of their youth playing video games and eating cheetos in their apartment.
Steroids are getting to be a real problem in high schools, especially among young males. Many male teens start going to the gym in high school to bulk up. Someone at the gym, or perhaps a teammate from a school football or baseball team might offer your teen steroids to speed up the progress. If your teen is taking steroids, it' usually not as hard to tell as with other drugs because it drastically changes your physical appearance. If you suspect that your teen is taking steroids you should talk to them about it and suggest getting them some exercise or a fitness class
Diet Pills
Diet pills are also making their way into high schools where young girls who are constantly pressed about their weight eventually give in and take pills as an easy way out. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out, and diet pills can be very dangerous to your health. It can be hard to tell if your teen is taking diet pills or any other kinds of drugs; that's why it's important that you become involved in your teen's life and talk to them about body image and other such issues.
Homemade drugs
Other kids might try to make their own homemade drugs. Homemade drugs are as dangerous as any other drugs and although you know what's in them, you can't be sure of how certain chemicals will interact with each other and your body. Most homemade drugs are found drugs. The most common drugs include glue and prescription medicine. Many teens get high from sniffing glue or gasoline or other household things.
All of the aforementioned substances have some sort of addictive potential. If you or someone you know is suffering from a severe addiction, it may be time to consider attending a rehabilitation center. Many serious addictions come with even more serious withdrawal symptoms and, generally, the only way to remedy this problem is by placing the addicted individual in the care of professionals. Many addictions can lead to either death or irreversible brain damage. Don't let it get to that point if you or someone you know is struggling.


text:
Browser does not support script.
Skip to main content
If you have any questions about Anna-Marie's work please email Macmillan Development Manager David Seychell.
The Macmillan End of Life Prison Project delivers high quality palliative and end of life care services in a challenging setting.
Delivering high quality end of life care within a prison community is complicated by the nature and culture of this challenging and sometimes chaotic environment. Not only is there tension between care, security and discipline, but the nature of the prison setting means knowledge in this area of care is limited.
Gill brought together multiple partners to develop a robust service to address service provision for offenders and their families with cancer palliative and EOLC needs. Additional partners now include Care UK (healthcare providers prisons), prison discipline staff and prisoner groups.
Read Gill's full case study [PDF]
Key Achievements:
- In 2002 she developed a tool for assessing the needs of the local population to establish the service at that time and to forecast the needs of the service. She has since strived to ensure the service is implemented throughout Wales
- Authored the Wales Lymphoedema Strategy in 2010
- Secured £1 million recurring funding for Lymphoedema services in Wales.
- Appointed as the All Wales Lymphoedema Lead for the Welsh Assembly Government
- Successfully secured funding for the Macmillan Lymphoedema Education scheme in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University (ABMU), which delivers education for health care professionals and people affected by this condition.
Read Melanie's full case study [PDF]
Save page to
My Macmillan
If you have any questions about Macmillan we would love to hear from you .
You can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr or YouTube.
© Macmillan Cancer Support 2016
what are these?


text:
Home: Recipes: Beans
Easy Bean Pate
Ingredients1-2 tablespoon oil
1-2 clove garlic, crushed
1/2 onion, finely chopped
1/2 green chili pepper, finely chopped
1 teaspoon paprika or cayenne
1 can kidney beans, drained
Saute garlic, onion, chili, and paprika in oil until the onion is soft. Mash or blend the kidney beans. Combine all ingredients.
Have a better photo? Please send it to us: contact123 (at) happycow.net


text:
Do you give unsolicited travel advice to people who don't have a passport? Are you looking to get your foot in the door of the exciting world of travel writing? Do you get excited about researching meaningful travel experiences around the world? Are you highly attentive to detail, a strong…READ MORE
Meet Caitlin: A Meaningful Traveler Headed to Ireland!
In Fall 2016, the GoAbroad team launched a new and exciting initiative called the Meaningful Travel Manifesto — a way for motivated,...
Don't Miss Win the World South Africa!
We're incredibly excited to announce our third annual Win the World competition! This year's winner will be headed to South Africa to enjoy the...
What is the GoAbroad Meaningful Travel Manifesto?
"The idea of travel has excited me ever since I picked up my first kids' book about a traveling rabbit and his (mis)adventures abroad. Since...
Zoom in on Culture Photo Contest Winners
For the GoAbroad Zoom in on Culture Photo Contest we asked our networks to share how they've preserved memories through photos that depict...
Recent Posts
GoAbroad is excited to invite you to participate in the "Zoom in on Culture" Photo Contest! We want to see how you have preserved memories through photos that depict cultural moments from your international travels — in a meaningful, respectful, and inspiring way — and we're accepting your entries until 7:59 AM…READ MORE
Hey there fellow wanderlusters and wordsmiths! Looking to get your foot in the door of the world of travel writing and international education? Are you all about meaningful travel? Do you wield your pen like a pocket-sized sword, taking on the world one country – and one word – at…READ MORE
GoAbroad.com is now on Snapchat! Pull out your phone and add GoAbroad to see the world — no matter where you are. Join us in celebrating our launch & win sweet prizes! Our first Snapchat exclusive is a GoAbroad Swag Pack Giveaway. Share our Snapcode on your social networks (we'll monitor…READ MORE
We're elated to share with you the 2016 Meaningful Travel Video Contest finalists! Entrants were asked to submit a video that represents an aspect of meaningful travel for a chance to win a GoPro prize pack, sponsored by the Planet D, a $50 Amazon Gift Card, and/or membership to the Matador Marketplace! And…READ MORE
As the leading resource for meaningful travel, GoAbroad is pleased to present annual awards for innovation in the field of international education. The winners are selected by a prestigious and selective group of international educators known as the GoAbroad Innovations Academy, and in some cases by a public vote. Winners…READ MORE


text:
Prices, specials, features and availability subject to change.
Contact for details
Just minutes from town, this 3 bedroom, 2 bath home has been updated with new carpet and bath fixtures. Includes stove, fridge, microwave, new dishwasher and washer/dryer hook up. This home sits on 12.5 acres and features a large shop/storage building and dog kennel.
Available: September 1, 2016
Terms: Long term lease
Rent: $1,100.00
Security Deposit: $2,200.00
Pets: Negotiable with 100.00 pet fee and pet rent
Maximum 2 horses considered
Apply at Turbo Tenant: http://rent.turbotenant.com/properties/500-river-road
Pets Accepted. Dogs Allowed. Cats Allowed. Call for service animal policy.
Don't have a Rent.com account? Create one.
Creating an account allows you to acccess your saved and contacted properties on any device. Already have an account?
Log In
We are experiencing technical difficulties at the moment. Please try again later.