contract that requires dr warres or any party physician to continue to cover the nurses in fact there's nothing in the policy and nothing in the contract rather that requires the doctors to carry insurance and all the  been covered however that's why the associations over pay the associations trying to piggyback continuing expenses to cover his own nurses onto the doctors who are departed and there is no basis for that the problem is the policy of the place paid in the policy they want dr morris to reimburse them for covers them not only for things they did and specific direction but even if they were independent of anything the doctor or the association had asked the director to require them to do dr laura shouldn't have to pay for that coverage dr morris asked repeatedly for copies of the policy that he was being asked to purchase so that he could determine what exactly the coverage was that he was getting he had gone out and process and if you take a look at the pricing for the policies the doctor will rest on were less than a third of what you a it did but generally these things only go out to four years because then you start to get into the cutoff on the statutes of limitations if you look at the pricing portions that are set forth in both the policies in terms of purchasing these tail and reporting endorsements  morris continues to review his policy approaches and has in fact continued to do it the policy and the coverage that he purchased for himself and the association which is what the contract required him to do remains in contract particularly contractors from multiple pages has elements that are not material so would the failure to comply with a portion of a contract is not true breach of the contract and this happens all the time what we have here is a situation through a different carrier rather than the wrong they are doing that is a different situation but it still doesn't get around the fact that what they're saying is you know where you get it from really isn't that important you look at the comments that they make to the association that is trying to get their party doctors to pay excessive fees if you take a look they haven't even looked at it at little or nothing policy that they've just was priced correctly the instruction from no idea at this point because it hasn't been produced in discovery what the first rates were what the inception rate was for dr morris contract clearly as being overcharged are a super charged place insurance company's own insurance company doesn't write the pricing portion falls off after the four years the charges fall off according to the terms of the policy if you read it after four plus years of no additional charge for that for that coverage  to continue to subsidize their business decision to loan a number of different employee classes into one policy and that's the part that's you problem they can't force him and nothing in the contract puts him on notice that they're going to force him to but any personal tortious acts that they commit during the course of their treatment of the patient as to whether or not i assume he was directly supervising them or not  again we haven't seen the history of the policies we've seen only the policy that they just purchased in terms of what is being cut what it's covering we don't know how they come in these people in the past we only know that patient that may have been working under him but that doesn't need it he's responsible necessarily for everything that they think they're trained professionals as licensed professionals as well off with their own standard of care their own professional obligations own professional likely subpoenas out to the pro national insurance group as to how their pricing was set up what policies were in effect before and how the decision was made to run the policy for the association which covered not only the doctor but himself in the association he did that we did not mean that the provision regarding who he buys it from is material it's it's access for which the association has some concerns  failing to meet paying them for the policy the thing purchased are affirmative defenses essentially say they didn't need to buy that house and they paid too much for the policy they didn't do the things that they are supposed to when acting as almost a fiduciary of the doctor in purchasing this policy because their physician is a soulish most of discretion they have a very high standard in terms of what they have to do protect the doctor make sure the just into the policy that you ha and and essentially we believe that there were still facts left in dispute which is why we didn't leave for summary judgment across summary judgment on the affirmative defenses on this there are still many elements out there it's not a case that was specifically those very key issues