sir what is that assignment based on there's at the assignments or actually in the record you're on there on and which is that exhibit age if you give me one second i will settlement agreement it own there there were two sets of saddam one agreements one for the will assume for the wilson and fourth settlement agreement or in the record at the end gosh i don't have any  for thirty seven to four forty eight of the record apologize i didn't know that more carefully but those are the records from well to forward to mr fowler as the guardian they were directly the direct your attention to because their life care plan states that mr van hollen had a medical history of mental retardation secondary brain injury afore i was insightful and actual knowledge that they had so has of august thirteenth state for new two different things they knew that mr vander hall had been diagnosed as mentally retarded secondary to an injury of or in the new that we will propose and to sell we been will to for at the school records talking about that extremely low functioning so later on when we had actually hired him dr sanders to investigate there were also the implied representations i agree are on up to the point and that's the distinction between that rule three point seven of our professional rules in south drawls between an athlete acting as an advocate and an advocate acting as a witness i could have been clearer that that was an assessment on the evidence that we had at the time we did not get those investigation in mid italy that we should have done earlier until later now it would be a different circumstance how we act are fraudulent as an affirmative to finance but they never asserted that we were judicially a stop for taking these inconsistent positions because they are really not inconsistent we had an assessment of the evidence for we had him and thought of him before we had his mental health present that same hearing and at that changed the state court found that the initial saddam was void and that avoiding this your first i think south carolina and some other law because that's a two w processing a claim under their mutual binding insurance contract you can recover consequential damages in a court action implicit in the holding is the extension of like frightened for dealing in the performance of all obligations light oh our raising premiums substantially i just don't see it your honor that that concern a mom on assuming that we're asking them to do something really where we have affidavits in the record that this is what they are in fact already doing that they do investigate a climate smell competency once they have noticed that there is an issue that that and not your honor i don't believe it's driver and owner and then i understand your claim of damage even assuming we agreed this create this new obligation on insure your theory of damage is that really good deal for him because nobody was ever going after him to collect that seven million dollars i think but then you the prejudgment preferred it you enter into these settlement agreements that being the ones we began discussing three jury verdict in which you do the same thing right so you say again mr wilson and the same thing to mr to miss fo but let me just usenet wilson mr wilson whatever happens at this prialt you agree not to peel and all these sorts of things but most importantly at no point will the plaintiff just like the previous settlement agreement will a no no point with the plaintiff ever seek to enforce collection of any judgment against the defendant i guess mr wells so in both scenarios whether the old settlement was good i'm assuming they're good agreements because you know your opponent didn't challenge i'm looking at two agreements both agreements say mr wilson whatever happens here made a confession of judgment for seven hundred dollars or a verdict of seventy five million dollars impaired enjoy the capacity to contract unless the impairment is so severe that they are incapable of understanding the nature and the consequences of the act when you're talking about mental capacity to contra that is a subjective concept that seeks to get into the mind of the person contra south carolina law gives all of us a presumption to contract and there are cases that we have cited that have found folks that are retarded the one nine hundred sixty nine case i think it's humble oil that we sat in on a brief talked about a person who contract mentally retarded from birth who had dropped out of school in the fifth grade except for cases of found found people who were in an insane asylum and have capacity to contract cases have found people that have been adjudged to be income have the capacity to contract because capacity changes from person to person and for contract contract and we've also cited cases to say because of that the person th state in many cases to a now you wait a person's ability to understand a contract is an attorney particularly for the attorney is present when the person enters into that and said we think person x doesn't have the capacity to contract and on the other hand there was an attorney who was there so i was there and i think that she understood in the courts usually shot with the attorneys  out that the evidence they point to in this case that mr brander hall was slightly mentally retarded that he had slight brain and this information was made known in the previous case to judge g and it would affect of vast variety of cases going forward i think another concern that just google did not address is something that we should be concerned with is that look into towards the future but what about in the past has mr hatfield with this duty provided a roadmap for cases that have been litigated and settled and resolved to rise from the grave because somebody says well i had  duty to investigate and that's it they don't address a situation where the plaintiffs has determined his client to become where the plaintiff counsel has sat with his client and signed the agreement saying that his client understood the settlement agreement and the other the other issue is if the attorney who controls the access to  well the only way to get information is through that account in this case and in the previous case mr hatfield all he said the judge a girl in his words scolded you for having a client without asking and that's not  what but he thought that he'd been scolded for not having a guardian in that case he didn't get a corey he didn't go look at high school records he didn't do anything else in the suggest that he didn't do that stuff with judge thought raised the issue but he would do it if it was raised by state or is absurd so that would leave state form with having to go to court and say court would you please investigate mr inter hatfield so the the expert affidavits don't and can't address handle this could be investigated any further under these facts the the very this wasn't reasonable i don't know where we are destroyed and you know there have been some some clear markers as to what's reasonable settlement issue the result of that was a seven million dollars suit the seven million dollars judgment that everybody knew would be a case against a foe and so that was the sum and that's not putting state forms interests ahead of the insurance and then stay form litigates that case for two years wins and then has to start all over square one under this new theory so that isn't bad faith it's not putting the insurers interests in front of the insur thank you thank you clear representations from mr hatfill is actually from me because i wrote to bring were made in twenty fifteen the sodomite they were talking about was made in twenty thirty i'm not sure how they can rely on something sa in twenty fifteen to justify behavior in twenty thirty next this is the first case i mean judge would you ask me if there was a state in south carolina case only way every reliance on the defense attorney's representation or use of the competency of their own not not maybe exclusive way might be could be overcome but certainly this  upon counsel's believe of the competency of their client then it also happened be reasonable for opposing counsel to rely upon that same perception i don't believe your honor not if if their own notice that they need to double check in one of the things i wanted to follow up judge wilkinson about your concern about opening floodgates or something you had said in an earlier in another the wrong and different case what we have here was their actual notice that this gentleman was miller tarted secondary to an injury or an actual notice that he intended to settle without a bar an oral argument is a it's not that they have to do anything extraordinary we're asking for the states in this honorable