App. 3d at 699; see also FHP Tectonics Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., 2016 IL App (1st) 130291, ¶ 58 (“more recent cases explicitly recognize that the mend the hold doctrine requires a showing of unfair surprise or detriment”). As set forth above, there was no unfair surprise or arbitrariness in Acuity’s position, which was established long before trial. See Smith, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 746-47. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that there was no procedural prejudice, effectively conceding the current contention. We further note that Grange has only cited one case in support of its mend-the-hold argument, but in that case the appellate court found the doctrine inapplicable for lack of prejudice. We thus conclude Grange’s assertion of prejudice now on appeal to be entirely unpersuasive.