they did not decide what the relationships of those contractors were with their employees or those contractors were with their insurance companies as an example the truck driver was driving good as i was going to say that is the other half of what i was planning on saying kirby if it does change the analysis changes the analysis of what is called next contracts going back probably to the founding of the constitution intimately grew out of that under supplemental jurisdiction we could still hear them even though there was no basis for federal jurisdiction they needed our eyes me and not being clear here there means kea when the case was filed there was an amnesty issue jurisdiction there was jurisdiction over that issue it was properly in federal court that i was a properly in federal court because it was because it was the and you have no severability anymore and i strongly agree that the royal insurance policy is not a policy of marine charts but when you're analyzing jurisdiction you go back to when when the complaint was filed issued before the court was whether or not there was jurors it whether or not the penile policy which everyone admits is a marine insurance policy provided coverage for it's dark i guess the back of it or not quite sure what was there the pier whatever and it's unloaded from the ship or the barge or the wind onto whether something is to have been injured in the process of something and then the thing was to continue on for two thousand miles you still be involved in loading and unloading because of his job as a tug maritime operation as opposed to insuring for example the stevedoring company which may be unloading twenty or thirty or forty vessels down here in seattle so that's one thing that if that played into the risk and as we pointed out  was chose not to depose mystery only and that's for a good reason they had all the application materials they had the letters their broker sent to royal visitor pleas for mr mclean mentioned he was a principal at kelly ryan the case was right up there by an independent company no relationship with kelly ryan bistro carter was there because he was on another vessel the day before ellie arrived as they usually did have a shore based employee somebody who was not a seaman and definition all the definitions and all the policies because that's the risk that they're insuring and in this case no one killer ryan said the intent of the definition different than loading and unloading that's in the seatbelt policy which just coincidentally happens to be  able to resolve it there's no expense to gether this one just going to apply the complete operation docket the facts you're really quite different at a minimum they're different up there should have been a summary judgment entered on the matter that's a matter that should have gone to trial regime after the fact which was inconsistent with this deposition testimony that in his mind you thought perhaps it would cover loading and unloading but you read it very carefully it's very clear he never communicated that to anyone and indeed his broker said that's not something ever told me because we really insured here under the umbrella or you know yeah well you can probably ask yourself why would will not charge a premium you know people generally don't give things away and certainly insurance companies don't and that's because based on the disclosures and the way these workers comp policies apply there was no believe that there would ever be any exposure on an access policy in these circumstances and let me back up and just explain a little bit about how is they charge a flat premium for the insurance in the first instance where the worker's comp insurance or for an employer liability complement which is part two of the policy then what happens is they classify the workers so in this case each worker  factors that apply and still what you do is you look at who's doing what job some are riskier and you have higher premiums so there's a premium this based on who's doing what kind of work and this is very important you know i'm for virtually every aspect in this case because both kelly ryan and alaskan national repeatedly classified mistral hot even at the time of this injury as being in job classifications which are subject only to part one of the alaska national policy that is  there are exceptions where you could do both your honor it's not usually exclusive typically it is typically somebody you who has a claim in alaska doesn't have the jones act claim but there are exceptions and we've cited the cases which gets back to our position on the workers longshoreman's is so that those people who have a worker's comp or a longshoreman claim to get that process will be paid for the injuries that are passable under those schemes not all aspects of the injury are compatible under those  so for example with mr okada he probably wouldn't be entitle to worker's comp pain and suffering damages under the alaska state worker's comp program so where would that go that would go into part two it's his wage loss and the other things comp only prior to his injury but even well into two thousand and three after everybody evaluated this issue again and again kelley ryan an alaskan national i continued to classify him as only being in a job that was stuffed into part one of the policy itself course of dealing use of the trade all established in addition to the testimony of the insurance professionals and kelly ryan's own program that this was not an injury that was supposed to be covered under the loading  unfortunate was intended to work and what it was intended to cover first there's an exclusion for claims over by protection and then the policies second if there's a claim that survives that exclusion there's an exclusion for obligations that should be paid under the worker's comp laws and this case with the word is exclusion not obligated to pay and if you actually look at the insurance policy the insurance company knew how to use the terms differently their places in the policy were assessed we will pay you if you become obligated to pack in the exclusion that doesn't say i have a good case as exclusions and that's so that you can't have what happened here happened which is there was manipulation by the employer not in favor worker's comp benefits and shifted live billing to a portion those would be exclusive there wouldn't be jobs act that situation and also one of the other professionals said well it sure looks like a longshoreman to me if he's unloading the podium vessels and that's covered under part one that's not covered under part two  too i don't believe that more folk necessarily overrules all aspects of simon's case i think more folk helps my position here i don't think it undermines the per dime where you attempt determine whether a contract which is both makes contract both maritime and non maritime whether you close the circle ability or incidental standards i think those still apply i think what north is expands the universe of contracts which are primarily maritime and concluded that it was so it didn't have to get into the severability incidental task here i think we need to get into that because there's no question that the royal umbrella policy had a large component of non maritime risk and something is primarily a maritime obligation and so you would look at the overall policy and applying norful you would conclude if you look at the world policy entirely in its entirety that this is not primarily a maritime obligation indeed indeed i think we would all agree on that i don't think it then eliminates the next step whether the maritime obligations which i think your folks would conclude exist with regard to the emmy endorsement are started for incidental to the non maritime aspects for the purposes of through an insurance contract and found it was in the courts or even if there is one premium that doesn't mean and which your stiction doesn't want to just in terms of contract after getting the court's order yesterday i looked to see what one other question that you asked which was the question of if there is not actually jurisdiction is there jurisdiction to resolve this dispute as a good question and the answer is unclear because the procedural history of this case when this case court's ruling that policy was out of the case it then sued royle and so i think it's that it's an interesting question whether they can have supplemental first action over royalty a situation in which the basis for their original jurisdiction they believe was resolved paid for all the rest under the insurance policy royal's premium was a flat rate seventeen thousand dollars that was a flat rate in terms of their arguments regarding grade three day