policy and for the reasons that i'm going to discuss today silver cross respectfully request this core to reverse the trial court's determination in that regard contrary to the finding of the trial or the plus the limits of liability of any other applicable insurance meant pro focuses on the word total to suggest this over process i are consist of a two million dollars payment in addition to the one million dollar liability limit of the physician's liability policy but that's not what the micro policy set is and more importantly it's not what so ever cos was filed and i assume this is what you're getting at in october of two thousand and one a policy period here that begins in november of two thousand and record doesn't make that exactly clear why it is i know that the claim was report handled as following within the two thousand two thousand one policy period yes and then this is my second question is the self insured retention for silver cross covers hospital liability the self insured retention under the doctor's policy covers his her freshman liability and if you look at the language in it in the insurance policy that says it's the total this plus the doesn't it seem like the self insured retention should be computed separately for both of those you know and i'll tell wide ability we don't get there because what we're talking about is what's identified in the schedule of undermined insurance that second clause beginning with the word watts assumes that there might be another policy out there that isn't identified in schedule woman or will insurance so we don't get to the last portion of the cause at all because what we're dealing with is a physician's liability policy didn't do you don't hear in the schedule of underlying insurance  and it's also important to know for comparative purposes and so that i meet the point that the s i are gets replaced by the physicians liability policy it's useful to look at how s s i are was defined before the be something other than two million dollars and the something other is that it could be the one million dollar liability limit of the physicians liability policy the provision doesn't read the combined crowell made very much in the way of a needful response to this argument they didn't in the mornings and they didn't for good reason because this is the position that men are itself i doubt did prior to intentions and circumstances surrounding the formation of this contract all may come and miss the ball and also with great importance is the fact that the policy has to be construed in the one most favorable supercross and against gaps in coverage he set out to meet coverage seem less in these situations where another one playing in one piece coverage under a physician's liability policy that evidence is would apply directly above the exhaustion of the physicians liability policy now even if your honour's are not important to agree with our policy interpretation arguments we have asserted that under the circumstances we've heard unstoppable doctrines ought to be applied to med pro and there is ample evidence in the record to support that many proactive inconsistent with an intent to have its silver cross pay a physicians liability policy can go towards the exhaustion of supercross as a sigh are a second category of evidence we have correspondences in the year two thousand and four were in mr abney in no uncertain that there is communications or settlement negotiation documents that they are offers a compromise and we would submit to you that they are no such thing they are not probably r will absolutely i will tell you that because of the prejudice and death from that factor i did want to briefly add that i've made pro will tell you that the two thousand and four communications or settlement communications of already conveyed that we plus the applicable limits of liability of any other applicable insurance now essentially what supercross asking the court to do is to read out these words total unplu paid money for this definition the policy itself was more extensive than the year before but that's frequently the case with insurance policies that the cost of insurance rises there's no testimony in this case that says that so the cross the more money to get this more narrow less advantageous perhaps definition of self assured retention they sent to conversations between mr abney in people in his own office now think about this they're saying it's a waiver for and need to sing didn't even most people in his office talking about what the policy it's a matter of the testimony only one person testified as to the context of these conversations robert dad he said these communications with ted yars were part of the context heard of the that but i'm having trouble with your answer because you could theoretically bothered consideration of all kinds of relevant documents just by discussing them during the settlement negotiations i didn't need to go that oh we argue in the briefs about the judgment interesting issue i'm not going to go into that that comes in to similar analysis you focuses on particular language develop first to say that the trial court here are in determining this issue as a matter of law is quite interesting because men profiled cross motion for summary judgment on this issue when therefore conceded that there were no question in december of two thousand the verdict came down for approximately eight million dollars in january of two thousand and four silver cross filed this dec action in september of two thousand and four that was one month after the verdict in the free go he's had come down we get to maybe of two thousand and seven before made pro says anything or puts anything that issue in the de had been our med cruise radar since two thousand and three they were talking about it with the freedom point the discussions that korean apne had about free go also encompass just me there had been discussion about are here because he didn't know it had a right to be s i r p minutes to judge nick and tell the trial or made it summary judgment determination for you know well the problem with that argument is that the dates don't add up close also intimating that by their verbiage we put in our complaint for declaratory judgment that there were queens pending in cook and will county that were relevant to this essay or dispute we didn't identify representing that their pain and as you said no it was made in november of two thousand and six but there's not anything in the record that actually supports that the site and affidavit of one of their employees but if you look at the several weeks later oh yes we knew about the judge case of course yes we knew that there might be a judgment of course but we didn't medical protective didn't actually pay heed to the judgment until a few weeks