examined the relevant parts of the record if that will assist you in narrowing the focus of your arguments to the st sites issues that are presented on appeal now m valerie get us the court room deputy is the time keeper and she will let you know when your time has expired and she will also provide you with a two minute warning  enterprise liability defense wilson there are two georgia cases emergency professionals from atlanta versus watson and u s lines versus cutting edge that say that yes every university i come into the case and then turned around and asserted this enterprise liability defense said none of us was the woods then the jury and the several court action is that emory university fail to assert a complete defense to liability and the underlying lawsuit and at emory university this is judge newsome just a quick question of the gate the same question i asked her adversary and i'm having a hard time for of reconciling what everybody means by complete defense the you mean a complete defense as to memory or a complete defense that would have extinguished your and then the commission liability because i think those two things are different given the continuing defense is quote any defense showing the lack of a legal compulsion to pay and that's on the part of the indemnity so the georgia court of appeals has developed the g a s line to say that what we're really focused on is the liability  wilson referred to earlier they pick up on that it's focused on whether the party seeking indemnification was really legally compelled to make the payment for which seeks indemnification and then watson the court said it doesn't really matter whether that payment was made after a judge the voluntariness of a payment is determined by whether the party seeking indemnification had a defense which would have defeated the claim for which would seek some damages and that's exactly what we have here i think even my learned friend on the other side acknowledges that emory university could have successfully pressed this enterprise liability defense because it was really a grandparent corporation i don't think it contests that it even concedes that i page five it concedes that this enterprise liability defense would have insulated emory university from liability and the underlying lawsuit and i guess the point on appeal is that is the only fact that the georgia courts of appeal yes yes in the immediate your honor judge anderson i think it's correct that no one as far as i can tell in the georgia case law has made this kind of secondary argument that emory university's making here where it asks the court to kind of speculate in the abstract well what would have happened had they had sort of this defense does it really would have really changed your indemnification obligation and i think that's because it's entirely speculatory we don't know how a that with respect or i don't believe so i think that's the watson case the cutting edge landscaping case and then especially the color that was lost by the progressive electric services case which was even more subsequent decision by the georgia court of appeals  and fourteen i think that properly framed the issue that this court needs to consider it's how does georgia law view this voluntary payment doctrine with respect to indemnify cation claims and i think it's clear from those cases that it doesn't view it as an equitable defense that depends on the circumstances of what happened from the endemic tours perspective i think that those cases really lay out a thread that says we're going to focus on whether the indented could have avoided liability and that's exactly what happened in watson and cutting edge and in progressive electric services it didn't involve an identification claim like we have here but georgia court of appeals says that the voluntary payment doctrine is merely a corollary to the quintessential element of an indemnity claim which requires proof of a legal compulsion to pay and so what you have to do is i think you have to look at ok well what are the the essential elements that emory university needs to prove here and one of those is a legal compulsion to pay emory university because they failed to assert this complete defense didn't have a legal compulsion to pay therefore as a matter of law they cannot because its decision with regard to the underlying fruit was a legitimate defense strategy and that would make it exempt from the indemnification bar but we don't  the georgia court of appeals is to say that because there were some language in that opinion where the court referred to a legitimate defense strategy i think the stipulation that case was a stipulation agency that emory university's decision to enter the case on the eve of trial is somehow a can to that stipulation of agency and connor's but i think that this is sort of a kind of a frankenstein rule that my friend kind of liability it didn't say in that case that there was evidence of a complete defense and in fact i think the only presume to complete defense that it analyzed was a statute of limitations defense that the court of appeals recognized would not have shielded the and then the t in that case from liability anyway so there was no evidence in connor's that the indemnity in that case even had a complete defense unlike here where i think it's critical and mary has conceded that fact so emery is trying to get around that concession for i think it has to take based off of the record here and try to argue that really you know in the hypothetical case the jury just would have pointed the finger at wesley but i don't think that the court can take the hypothetical where the georgia court of appeals cases just don't go that far they stop at the moment and then that he fails to assert a complete  support in georgia law there is an attempt here to suggest that this principle really means we should ignore the fact that they cannot establish the quintessential element of their claim but i don't think that any contribution can be recovered by the party tax against a rd party if the party text had a defense available which would have defeated the action so i think it's referring to the action as to that party not the at the action in the abstract bar operate the centrally as a penalty against an indemnity who could have raised the defense as for itself instead of as a protection of the and then the tour i think it i think it operates to make sure that law it's about whether the indemnity can stablish an essential element of its claim and that is the legal compulsion to pay and that's where i think the court needs to at least focus on what georgia law considers this type of claim to be a legal compulsion to pay and under the case all that we've cited i think it's it's fairly strong in the thread running through them is if that indemnity had a legal defense available to it and failed to assert it then it cannot establish as a matter of duty defense in the cutting edge case your honor i see that my time is getting to an end so in closing emory university has never really explained why it jumped into the case when it was insulated from liability but ultimately those reasons do not matter georgia law looks only to whether the party seeking indemnification can show that it was legally obligated to make the payment for which is six demonstration as a matter of law that party cannot make that showing if it had a complete defense to liability and it fails to assert it that's exactly what we have here so we ask this court to affirm judge steve jones order  during my opening argument about the existence of an issue of fact and i believe mr gretchen said something to the effect of well if emery had entered and then asserted the defense we don't know how the jury would  strategy constitutes a waiver of a complete defense strategy is considered in this calculus and with that unless the court has further question