at and i think that's why the i think that's why wouldn't prevail below but counterintuitive though it may be the document the language of the document is critical and if i might say with all due respect to the district court when the district court described the other language in the contract it is confusing as clutter and distraction iris would respectfully state that the clutter in distraction are the confusing terms of zurich wrote into the contract and that says insuring company zurich named insured leasing resources of america immediately thereafter it says this to duck the boat endorsement applies between you and us there are only two parties on that document leasing resource america not one not one of the defendants and zurich it applies between you and us and they critically it says the next sentence it does not affect or alter the rights of others under the policy it applies between zurich that implies between you leasing resource america and u in terms of the deductible reimbursement of the deductible payments that were vance mazurka that two million dollars but i know i'm saying my clients are not liable for that  at the outset yes i hear your question and your burdens from your brief says nothing as far as i could tell about how you read the policy and what your clients are liable for as i read your arguments your clients have no liability whatsoever for deductibles that's correct my clients do not the signatories to the what sort of a policy and they by my clients engage someone else to a what policy and they buy a worker's compensation  policy with no deductible requirement repayment two million dollars deductible requirement repayment you just said they didn't do not report required to pay that they if i might your honor i hear where the court is and i'd ask just for twenty seconds of indulgence to answer it in the  way that i think is included in this contract of insurance is another document called the specifications it's part of the contract of insurance the specifications according to the zurich witness who might  oppose the specifications are the final binding document that reflected all negotiations in the workers compensation the specifications are part of the the specifications say that the three signatories to the specifications stock leasing resources of america in court p e o management services group and sci international are responsible specifications to deal with but there was a trust fund your honor and members of the court that was funded to pay the to reimburse these deductible payments it at its maximum amount was up over twenty million dollars it was exhausted as zurich spent money to reimburse for claims in this complex complicated high stakes insurance program and policy zurich created a document that said if the collateral trust the trust fund to pay these if it runs dry then x y and z this is how we're going to be paid back and it says and i have that document it's another one that i would  would ask the tender to the court but it's in there it's in the record and it's quoted liberally in my brief it says we will recover the amount owed under each paid last billing from the collateral trust if the funds available under the collateral trust are insufficient to pay your paid loss billings or to secure your obligations to us if the funds under the collateral trusts are available for any reason you remain obligated to pay us that the those three parties sign that in order to issue the policy of insurance this is in our briefs zurich is not left high and dry desert is entitle to collect against those thirty six dollars six cents suit there was an arbitration in illinois i'm familiar with it i got i got tattered they got a judgment against leasing resources of america inc against staffing concepts international against p e o management services and zurich has told the world that this is the document that controls and we all know the specific controls over the general and your honor justice debina i understand it certainly you look at that language as they will for heaven's sakes they're on the hook in the large deductible endorsement they and fifteen word sentence they want to draw our attention should they ask the court to ignore the beginning of the document which says this pertains between us and does not impact others under the policy and not stupid they said listen if the collateral trust runs dry if the trust fund runs right where's our recourse they drew this document it's in conflict and you'll see in a couple the cases that are cited for instance zurich vs watts is a case which cited in the or it says in in the contract document on the one hand it seems to say that the name insurance are responsible to pay the payments that were at issue in the but there was another agreement in that it's called a p p a or an hour a it's another supplemental agreement just like our specifications that spells out the detail how do we calculate what's owed to whom do we issue it under what circumstances or when title the issue it and the court said what we believe this court should say hey it says one thing in one place it says another thing in another place and it couldn't be clearer what is said in these posts it could not be clearer and zurich knows it's part of the honor i don't think the one logically follows from the other they the p o s these employers whom i represent had large numbers of people who needed coverage they went to a central body which is called was called p o management services incorporated as an abbreviation pm s g pm s g negotiated on behalf of all these various companies the agreement and the program was or there was an obligation to fund the trust fund the various companies my clients had an obligation to pay into that trust fund to pay to p m s she their agent sort of a big part in their agent so to speak who paid it to convoluted difficult high stakes and you're telling me that these companies and turned into an oral agreement to deposit twenty million dollars or so orally into a trust fund well your honor is that does eric ok fully documented zurich documented each one of those with between three and four hundred pages of john henry harden looked at one another said ok we'll have p m s g negotiate the insurance contract with rata broken out and they paid in the money that was necessary to pay in monthly to fund the trust fund it's what happened here and it credulity or no but we're not here and so they did pay and  said what do we do of that trust fund runs dry and they end for zurich to say before the district court and before this court that it can choose to move forward only on the fifteen words that justice points out to us and to ignore the other terms that are admittedly part of the contract they sued on it that many many millions of dollars worth of judgments and this contract  acknowledge it's part of the deal but they have one document that they rely upon with the fifteen words help them if you read the opening three fourths five sentences it says it does not apply to anybody precisely these same amounts that they're suing for in this case and they got them probably appropriately against the signers of the specification meant the document that they drew to cover these very two counsel when she was addressing the issue about mr stanley's client she said well they may not be happy with the deal but that doesn't change the deal and that's exactly what we have with respect to serach they wrote a specific document that pertains to what happens when the trust fund goes dry and it makes others liable and it's not unfair clearly there are cases that say that typically insurance contracts are contracts of it and this is a highly sophisticated international company they know what they're doing they wrote that back with the way they wrote it i want to take issue with ms young's comment that the that the specifications are not the policy that's wrong in the parlance of their industry they say well here's the policy document six pages and then here are the amendments or the schedules and there are another one hundred and fifty dollars pages or actually in this instance it's about three hundred and twenty and then we have other documents that you can bet your bottom dollar we're going to enforce that pertain to this policy and there the program agreements and you'll see if you look at the specifications it says that when it references the insurance policies that it is part of it references w great question the meaning is st of all because the court has a difficult job with three hundred and fifty pages of trying to harmonize them right i mean that's a challenge it does say the name insurance or jointly and severally liable and then after writing this document the larger doctor who endorsed mitt writes the more detailed document that is the specifications that's going to be the overarching program that everybody has to adhere to and in that one they there are three name insurers who signed it you know management services group inc staffing concepts international inc and least they would be if we're going to harmonize these they are the ones who are liable for the reimbursement of deductible payments that are made if the collateral trust right that's the one rational way to do it you know management services group inc your r and s and staffing concepts international inc there were twenty one policies my clients were named if my memory serves eight maybe nine of them the other thirteen or so were companies they insist the court look at that one sentence in isolation the court is not permitted to look at one sentence in isolation the court is required to look at all of the terms of the contract and expressly not isolate one to the exclusion of others under the policy and others under the policy are my clients they wrote it they have to live with it i appreciate the indulgence your honor ok we're going to take a ten minute break and then we'll come back for our last