were paid without any litigation probably and what during that time period there was also a medical bill that if it were in the hurt by mr watson and  being submitted they were paid up to the limit of the med pay or fifty thousand dollars under the uninsured motorist policies as we set forth in the ok so farewell staffer for the purpose of under insured motorists coverage is that the insurance company has a right to set off their right it's a contract that has the it automatically of you know dollar for dollar as your pay the medical payments you know the on just want their one third for collecting for we've already got fifty we pay fifty we pay our contract was to pay out the two hundred fifty thousand if there was no under insured voters covered up that amount we paid one hundred fifty we paid the balance of the credit for two hundred fifty so we should pay a third of two hundred fifty to the attorney who saved us two hundred fifty because the life really the most were to fifty that's just not what uninsured motorist coverage is that's why this whole area is that's why some of the the whole idea of this benefit for us here we have we had no attorney working for our benefit we never asked him to do any work for us he never getting work person or company money for us in fact his demand was we pay a higher fifty on top of the fifty thousand medical payments or pay two hundred thousand or that is piracy three hundred thousand total more so he never acted in our interest or got anything to benefit whatsoever and second if you know what position with the insurance company have been but for the one thousand dollars  thousand met pay we have a right to pursue that part these are on the contract and that would cost you money to do so if that happened then maybe month third or forty percent i don't know what the group was but the point is back to my original question what would you offset the fifty thousand dollars against but for the attorneys who are in this case on behalf of the we are the one hundred thousand dollars we are absolutely against the uninsured motorist coverage so you a marriage you know by the contractual equitable what are they done to earn the money or so forth and here we are we had a contract that would expose feat one third c i white if you play it out like that same analogy that's what you have to get to which is not the law which can be the law he would give third of the two fifty from the far future and then of those thirty to fifty say from so you get to two thirds of two hundred fifty thousand dollars you paid twice yesterday if you really look at it there is no i mean no case the stevens case i mean there is really no common fun as the senate recognize in stevens and this is a different fact pattern by and of course here they didn't do any effort we didn't request to do anything we didn't  subrogation claim in this case so that's why we're just asking the court if you know i think if you look closely at the facts and think through the consequences and what the purpose of uninsured motorist every period where a person has been fully compensated up to the limits of the contract  yes one one issue i want to clear for the record is i did not charge the client a fee on the medical payments coverage that the if collectable at all would have to come from country mutual in my opinion so this whole notion of somehow double collected over collect that is this just didn't happen i made that clear i thought on the record i talked council afterwards yet we're still having those same allegations the issue here is the creation of the one of the hypotheticals oh presented or talked about was that we didn't have to collect anything from the toward the user in order for the undershirt motorist coverage to get the one hundred dollars one hundred thousand dollars credit however in reality if the case was not valuable enough to to collect the entire tort user coverage there could be no possibility that the under insured voters coverage would have paid out more coverage on top of that they would have had to go after they would have had to assess or assert a lien against the tort for users carrier in order to get their fifty thousand dollars back there was there was no way they could get that back that the reason why this case happen the way it did was because when i made my demand i made carry coverage of one hundred thousand and the under insured motorists coverage all the same time these claims were being handled out of the same office if you look at the letters that were part of part of the record you'll see that one of the adjusters chris christie or rowe was handling the case for he here  two are able to talk about this case at any time that they want to and i'm sure that at that time they decided this case we don't have to assert a lien against the tories are skivers we've got enough damage here it's not always going to trigger some under insured motors coverage it's going to trigger the entire two hundred fifty thousand we can just sit back and make our credit claim against those against the undershirt motorist coverage and that's exactly what happened in the student's case in the stevens case ultimately they made how the claims initiated ultimately the actions of country was exactly the same in both of these cases and in the stevens case the court said no you still took the money you still were able to collect money out of this bond created by the plaintiff's attorney and and all the say this that to wrap it up i don't want to too much further but i think one of the problems that we're running into here is the country of the insurance company they want to intermingle the terminology in the funds you know when when it suits their purpose they want to talk about the med pay and the under insured voters plain like it was just one big coverage that was available to mr watson under the policy however if you look at the record and you look at the documentation of the record the policy itself clearly sets forth that under insured motorists coverage is one type of coverage that will payments coverage is a different type of coverage these are two separate coverages under the policy section two of the policy dresses the uninsured motorist coverage and sets forth the terms and conditions section three of the policy sets forth the terms and conditions of medical payments coverage and there can be no doubt that mr watson paid premiums for each of those different coverages so they can't now the bind into one it were two different coverages when when i made the recovery from the tortfeasor six hundred thousand dollars that triggered the d i would go further if if this case had not result at the end enough damage to trigger the under insured motorist coverage then the common fund would have just been the hundred thousand dollars from the string those policy and there's no doubt the country would have a interest against that one hundred thousand dollars they were not from the eat that the fifty thousand that they had already paid out in this case they didn't happen do that because the damage was significant enough to trigger the under insured motorist coverage that extended the common bond out another hundred fifty  and i'm having a hard time brass my point paid for under insured motorists coverage but it wasn't an automatic right to just go on a claim but he still had to be able to prove up his case i had to present facts and evidence of the case such  and the damages the case such as they would pay or they could have come back and said no we don't think the damages are that high we don't think the liability is clear with they have the right to refuse to pay that money well i'm determination of what damages were created i investigated to find out whether what liability was an issue i presented the facts on the evidence of the damage evidence to the tortfeasor superior and convince them of the damages were high enough that they should countries are there involved here there are different country entities but ultimately i think the parties agree that it's all part of country insurance reform it's all part of the same like i said the the the the adjusters who handled would know an automobile accident rock what were the nature of the injuries he said oh boy bad stuff yeah he had a it was either a double surgery of the shoulder or the knee i don't don't recall which but yeah significant significant injuries so he tracked eric's year to represent rock you gather up all this information and make it the band sure his company and his own coverage yes i mean i made a demand at one time for both coverages and provided both insurance adjustors with with the medical records that it will bill's and my argument as to why they were responsible for their policy when these days we ultimately this case was probably worth more than two hundred fifty thousand that's just all the insurance that  the then the adjuster for the under insured motorists coverage which i believe was mr drove the country he agreed that they were on the hook for the additional one hundred fifty thousand dollars clients files that's my call so your client had a policy that providers during the course of his treatment not to him but to the providers but he was private insurance from by the insurance company that the medical bills were higher than that that's just one of the limits of the many payments coverage exhausted so at that point they were they didn't pay any more because they were contractually obligated to christa rowe on behalf of country agreed that this was a policy limits case and agreed that the one hundred fifty thousand was appropriate and then instructed me they were going to but they weren't going to pay me one hundred fifty thousand they were going to pay him one hundred thousand because they took credit for the fifty thousand they had already paid and the medical payments go so technically he collected two hundred thousand dollars and his medical providers collect the other so your claim is you did all this work for your client who got the benefit of two hundred fifty thousand dollars you got the benefit of the two hundred thousand dollars he collected and i suppose we could say he received some benefit in that he collected the fifty thousand dollars wealth the insurance company had paid that he'd be on the hook for were me that's right  would have either had to pay that out of his pocket or suppose minute to his personal insurance so under your contract with your client you were paid contingent fee for your work for a bit two hundred pounds and he got wrecked in your position is he should get a third of the fifty thousand dollars that they took that's right not not from not from my client but from the insurance company because i allowed them to get their fifty thousand dollars back by three by reading the bond by which they could take the credit if not for the fun they're out the fifty thousand dollars and they said if i had to say correctly well we always had to pay this anyway and i guess your position is they might have said no we're not going to pay you or what you know i think that's right that they had to pay the fifty thousand dollars just that they had the right to go back and get that money and they certainly would have defied you know got the money if i had as well as you had submitted if i had not made any claims at all then there's no doubt the country would have gone back to itself so it's a free country a say he was fifty thousand whatever it was supposed mr know how that of change if that happened then again they would have had to pay off the fifty thousand dollars and other medical payments coverage but there wouldn't have been any he would have in the forty's or they couldn't have gone against himself to collect the money i mean it would it would have been his coverage there would have been the liability coverage available to mr watson under that scenario what would he have if he had been the guy went through the red light have not collected by him but that's right then country might have been on the hook to pay mr no money and then and then the roles were been reversed and in the mr and i would have been attempting to collect money from mr watson's policy i don't know what  insurance mr know had other than his hundred thousand dollars and it's your position that this is like the steve in this case this is exactly like the stevens case the the facts started off a little bit different stevens because in stevens the country initially asserted a lien against the tortfeasor scarier and i think the reason why that happened they're not here is because in that case the farm was the tortfeasor care they didn't happen to that in this case because the country had both coverages the common fund you claim would still be the same i don't think it would have been any different had they had they come back and just say let's say that we had gone to trial in those circumstances and the jury could come back at two hundred fifty thousand or more right then i think what we tried to take the the twenty thousand dollars in med pay there they tried to take credit against the and there was additional fifty not and additional one fifty and country it was the insurance company in that case made the exact same argument they're making now that there was no agrees with their claim and returns a verdict of forty thousand dollars for damages weapon but essentially we're talking about the insurance coverage for most would be to fifty because you money back out a hundred thousand dollars and then he so he could say i would tell her feet to country got back thirty thousand of that hundred then he said i get ten thousand of that thirty thousand country got back but here country no check the entire hundred thousand dollars he didn't get any money of a hundred thousand this example says we go after the hundred thousand and get money back out of all we didn't go way up any of the hundred thousand and the entire hundred thousand went to no and that's why it's different court stays in