both attorneys would just step up briefly fifteen minutes to present their argument and from their top lead you may save out some time for rebuttal all right all right ok so with that we will your understanding that t t c and m g m had some kind of formalized agreement in place in which t t c would be paying for the salary and for the workers comp benefits all the gentleman who is in here that is friends it's not in the record that is correct is there some reason that was not in the record i don't know how to answer that for you i don't know if it that's exactly right the fine did step in to teach shoes and at that point at the worker's compensation commission but so the question really is this policy of insurance that was cured by any g m was if it for the insurance they specifically stated that there were other persons at that facility but those other persons were employed by t t c who also provided coverage and they in fact prove that that coverage was provided to those other persons at that facility if you look at the general language though of five five forty six of the on this reimbursement destroyed section they rely on heavily it does say in there that if the claim under such other policy but arises from the same bet injury or loss that gave rise to the coverage plan couldn't one reasonably argue that their language suggests that claim the injury the fix or covered by this other policy well that would assume that that other policies in fact exist i think that's where but i  all sixty employees that were there the employees that are the persons that were actually at the plant from the t t c were not their employees their employees they were employees of the t t c but weren't they loaded always they were at least employees employees and therefore the insurance policy that was issued by the new surety was not a policy which in fact covered mr sandusky's injury and because it wasn't it's not counted as loaning employees then must pay and then they can ask for a right for reimbursement back for the buying play of last year's an agreement to the contrary which they and that act back designates leasing companies as loaning employees because it's contemplating these types of situations where owning employees do bear the insurance and because they are actually their employees so they don't go back to the bar and play because there's an agreement for the contract and i believe there's actually previously and i also think that the policy itself in the terms itself so very clear and the fact that there was never a premium paid on behalf of the were based upon the actual choices that were at that location so i would submit to you that it's clear from the record that there is no policy workers compensation claim from the very beginning well indelibly that they thought that they had the obligation to i don't think that there was not a trick i think there probably was one i just can't deal with or in good conscious that i'm aware  what you're asking just i think there are different questions than that now the way i would handle this particular situation would have been something entirely different but i'm not sure that such material be happy to deal with it if you'd like up in this is based do you agree that there was at least one insurance company that was paying for workers compensation coverage and isn't that really all that the act reason why you know that the the act requires a lot of different things and the act requires certain specific requirements with regards to what employers can and cannot do i do believe that t t c in its position as an employer provided the compensation a worker's or should the workers when you say they have absolute don't you think you have to read them all together absolutely absolutely especially the part where it says that the borrowing employer and the loaning proverbial back in other words the employee asked to have coverage and it can go to the loaning employer or the borrowing employer to get its insurance when needed if an employee is injured that situation can be brought about however that situation all due respect is not allowed by forty three that situation could possibly be brought about by an exception to forty three which is found in or a fool by some other methodology that is approved by the commission now that is approved by the commission is an application and approval process that obviously was not done in this situation but that is the way that i would have handled your specific problem i would have gone to the commission with an application i have this i have this is this enough they have the commission if they signed off on it that would have been it however records show that the well you're saying that under the act two employers have to share the work no i'm not saying that all i'm saying that if you wanted to avoid that situation there are things that could be done however one of her europe has to import has to ensure all of its legislature ever intended it to employers pay for the same coverage when one is already doing i don't think that was the purpose of here the purpose of the act is to make certain that every employee  this case every employee it because t t c had a policy for workers compensation i mean the record disclosed and they were paying them until they became unsolved when the fund stepped in i don't disagree the forty three is the critical issue that form from which all the rest of my arguments for it means that there is a virgin a surety policy of insurance that covers this injured worker it means that that will also reflect policy with the virginia surety policy that was other insurance that was other insurance that is other and where were the premiums or anything that was for that particular thing i don't think that there's any question but that this policy was a valid policy covering in g m employees at the subject location i don't think that there's any question  without any insurance i don't i don't doubt that at all but i still run into forty three now from my from my argument that this doesn't represent traditionally policy does represent other shirts that triggers the  forty three go along with the existence or coincide with the existence of these laboring manpower service organizations that regularly send out employees on a i certainly see that it is you're right that these are traditional types of arrangements between employers loaning barly lawyers that that occur in illinois across the state every single day the only wrinkle here the only reason that we find ourselves here today is that the policy that the loaning in shipley employer bought the credit general policy case one failed i think the legislature wrote just as many safeguards as possible of the workers compensation act and when they bright in those provisions that actually one employer would eventually  day i think i hate to to parse that but i think that they created a mechanism whereby parties could understand their relative rights against each other it's clear that the statu anything well it protects the worker true it makes certain that that worker is never left without insurance in this case is not one of those situations where the employee was left without coverage the point the employee was not the booker yes there was a there was a hearing the worker's compensation was provided for by t t c eight of those payments were made up until the provision has to be read together to make sense and at the end of the day one of the employers in the borrowing and owning situation here's the burden of the entire loss yet that's  those premiums and ensure that risk while the other doesn't have to but what you're suggesting is that an employee best be covered by two alice sees if one ever goes if one of those companies become top they have to be paying double and that's really what the court did by entering this because one policy of insurance never insured this risk but another policy did insure this risk and paid the premiums is is that you're right that mechanism in section one hurried some certainty as between the two insurance companies yes to which will eventually bear this but that's what brings us here today we've got an insurance company and the guarantee from we're not an inch yet here we go behind insurance companies any valid collectible insurance which which is what the british or the policy is with regard to  we did happen sure it's simply that he had insured this risk and paid the premiums or the employer paid the premiums and then the payments were made to the injured worker until that company  the the the the pot of last resort right for people who don't have access to any other insurance pots right and this is a case where the insured  all of us are contributing to that because we're paying for this availability of a fund to step in when an insolvent insurance company can no longer provide the coverage it was supposed to anyway i think i understand your argument that the act just not allow for any employer not to cover every employee at a particular site my response to you is that is that they cover all their mechanisms to allow to guarantee that employee who in fact does get injured is allowed to access insurance from either one or the other but what about the cases that say that the exclusively provisions of the workers compensation  not in fact convert them to all boys under section four and that the both portions of the staff have to be read together and i read that section one and three it's been put into place to guarantee that employee can always access insurance  but it doesn't i don't believe that that provision of the statute then somehow obligates employers to cover everyone that happens to be there because they did m g m did in fact cover its employees pursuant to section four of the statute and i i  would also say that there is an avenue as counsel spoke about that you can go in and ask for insurance and ask for a waiver i don't think that's in this record so i don't know really we can talk about well if someone were driving and dropping off a pick if they have a location and they