before you step out of the morning council just one is not present today but he will be taking part in the resolution of this matter he has read the briefs and the record and will participate in the represent and this is a microphone it's not it's a recording device not a microphone so please modulator voice accordingly remember that we've read the record we've read your briefs and so get your strongest argument first this is a case of a good faith finding of twenty thousand dollars per the settling defendant was registered a two point three three blood alcohol content she hit it properly place jersey barrier at a construction site next to a government building and then her car crossed the double yellow line that marcus's thread of the a hole in the minor alcohol content we submitted the affidavit of was destruction project manager brian covert who stated that the jersey area was proper place to permit it and we submitted the the judge might not have allowed additional discovery on that before making the good faith finding that's correct and for me that's a two step process your honor what's missing but deep well missing is th that you're looking at hundreds of thousands of medical bills and a life care plan that's going to be in the millions spot the the irony is that while we have the burden of proof as the defendant to show by the providers of the evidence that  a judge in probate as well as a correct that's correct all right what's the role of the judge in probate in approving the twenty thousand for the minors estate what's the what's how does it fit into the whole picture here i think the probate proceeding the it is that it is considered part of the totality of circumstances analysis and the how can you speak of that in relation to your  wouldn't they just filed a motion for summary judgment which they still have an opportunity to do to get out of the federal income and they have an opportunity to do that that is in fact a remedy that so far if they have no culpability in this particular matter they have that as an alternative they have the together with the question that i just said should the the question of the kids the consideration purses the relative hope nobody has this in this particular case there was discovery done i just had written discovery of my client they had an if we need to talk about the relative coke ability in order to ensure a fair trial for walsh a fair claim never went to trial well the the plaintiff has to be able to the employment in lipa from sorry to interrupt you but up you know we get people people have multimillion dollar for tix rendered against them all the time even though the panelists but that's what the verdict has to be because it's the evidence was strong to support correct and in a lot of your argument centers around this twenty thousand dollars policy we gave the whole process we didn't give you half the policy your seventy five get the whole policy well so well that's my question op in this case language really supports your phone it doesn't matter i think it actually supports us because in this particular case there was an analysis and if you review the record from the trial court he talks about fact that the consideration in this particular case the the twenty thousand dollar good faith finding the answer that question is yes and i would i would point the court to which in the johnson case which i think is the case that we talked about the most i think both parties talk about the most throughout the course of this quincy the allegations against them as a third party defendant were that they didn't they didn't probably design or maintain the the runways and that's why this accident happened they actually crossing runways they got out for a thousand dollars because said you know what the point to decide if the plane all decided that it wasn't worth it it wasn't worth it to pursue this particular defend it yes partially because of their defense in this case but b but they felt they had better arguments elsewhere against other against other defendants and decided to pursue those and the court gave credence to that particular argument and i think that's relevant here is well the plaintiff is the one who has the potential to be really evidence that this is eleven days in a hospital brain hemorrhage brain injury you know you look at a case like that and i think if it's easy to say that's going to be you know above and beyond the amount of question that's one thousand  dollars and then he goes to that that question the probability of recovery that question off is it worth it for the plaintiffs to pursue someone who's on a scale of one of the circumstances they're acting in good faith and you know that it was ordered to come forward with this and  and with this settlement on the table with the police on the table and say here's why she's got forty thousand dollars that's her only asset and they've got a they've got they've got offended that they don't have it can't get anything out of the matter and of i would say that for all intents and purposes by this is a release my client of from the case an egg in order to properly protect my client you have to that's switched to ask you another question that i asked him do you think it's fair to say that in the absence of a front of collusion that's the obvious in the case of the trial court will simply rubber stamp a settlement has been made in good faith especially when the policies offered i don't think so i think the evidence and i can speak to this case in particular i think that they do there is an analysis here that goes on there is an analysis of you know is it good and the one thing happen at rest is this all the policy that underlies the contribution and that is the policy to encourage that and in this case should go down a path a finding it would have been a major discouragement to the idea of settlement she beat two to both insurance companies and who have a good faith obligation to their clients to put money on the table when these situations arise tect their interest and  has somebody else to the point to on the verdict form at the end at the end of the case and that question i didn't hear i'll also address that before i think back question really what's happening here and in that particular today which is that it's that it would discourage settlements on the other side they said you know we're not going away those we think that that's something the legislature took into consideration when they passed this particular statute and for that reason that we're going to leave it as it is and waive the end of the case even though there's a good faith settlement here there's a settlement the probability of recovery was taken into consideration in light of the circumstances like i said do we not merely take into consideration the probability of recovery from this judgment proof defendant but do we not only take but do we not also take into consideration the special damages and the likely damage award that the jury would render i assume that if plaintiff if a defendant only has a small policy and there's no evidence of collusion by definition you've got to find a good faith and if in the point the defendant gets to go home i mean that's what you're saying even though i don't think that's the law i think but what i'm saying to lawyers is in a case where there is no other a saleable assets and they put up everything they've got there's no reason to continue to drag the what they need to review this matter then the court can determine that they don't get any additional discovery and this court of judge gonzales his particular matter felt he had what he needed to be able to evaluate this case given the factors that are outlined in johnson and also