in West Bend’s policy. Read as a whole, the provision at issue in Cincinnati Insurance focused on how the policy could be changed; it was titled “Changes,” after all, and the second and third sentences of the provision addressed mutual amendments and unilateral endorsements by the insurance company. More importantly, however, the Cincinnati Insurance court never explained how the first sentence in the “Changes” clause — “[t]his Policy contains all the agreements between you and us concerning the insurance afforded” — was insufficient as an integration clause. The “all agreements” language is unambiguous and ordinarily indicates that the contract is integrated, as the Illinois Appellate Court held in another ease. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 370 Ill.Dec. 130, 987 N.E.2d at 905 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as we’ve already noted, an
holding that identical all agreements language  this policy contains all of the agreements between the parties  is an integration clause holding that the statements by the court went well beyond a mere rejection of the agreements and explanation for it they suggested at the very least the agreements that would be acceptable holding that immunity agreements are analogous to plea agreements and are enforced under principles of contract law within the constitutional safeguards of due process holding that the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements holding that agreements other than fullfledged collective bargaining agreements may be contracts within the meaning of  301