think i do know your honour's as of my clients not going to be deported no matter what else convoluted language problem but can i just get a clearer understanding of your position assuming that you're trying to as i understand your argument to be that the pla believe that articulate which ones would permit an award of damages under the subject of a lot of those causes of action i think in any event it is clear that the claim for attorney trouble with it and when you look at it damages treatises mccormick or all the others who have written over the years they just don't cancel attorneys fees for damages except when it's i think that begs the question your honor with all due respect i think the question is what are the plaintiffs seeking and what the plaintiffs are seeking in this case is some equitable remedy plus a big batch and there's no doubt about that there's no doubt that they are seeking attorneys  damages that you alluded to in a way and they don't make the plaintiffs full for the wrongful act that is the basis for the suit instead of instead they are ancillary relief granted because of the expense of the litigation itself i think that now you mentioned that the insurance companies know about this problem and if they want to deal with it they have to deal with  wrongful acts seeking non monetary relief and i looked at the complaint in this case and it looks like that's just what it is it's a huge complaint about all the bad things that we've done and then huge prayer for wrongful act taking non monetary relief so i have to do is look at the career and see what relief is sought not for the ancillary consequences of litigation for rather for the wrong which is somebody comes in and says i want an injunction your burning leaves in your backyard and i'm you know being smoked out by it i'm not showing up for damages i just want an injunction to keep me from doing something in the future to sort of you know make you do something if you think that complaint which national casualty concedes is a request for a monetary award and which we therefore are compelled to conclude is a request for damages because that's the definition of damages a request for a coverage here but that's ok because a i may get told to stop doing something that might not cost me anything to be a mandatory injunction and i was told to do something well at least you know i can factor that into the cost of my business now depositions that's right that's exactly i mean if you do more discovery on the fees than you do on the merits and side of the taxable cost and you know those really are not in the game if you if you look at the policy what this policy covers is damages that prejudgment interest as all part of the definition of monetary judgment i'm reading it i'm reading it as saying there is coverage for any monetary award tax against the insured so you are trying to say world deposition costs wouldn't count but i understand why not under that reading is you're relying on all costs tax against the interest there's no doubt that they're covered there that's certainly true but then that means that any case any litigation were costs are taxed against the insured becomes a claim for damages i think that that reading is it is maybe not consistent with the reasonable a claim is defined as as a wrongful act a specific wrongful act and i just think that you have to look at this language as saying you know there's something different between taxable costs which aren't they don't have any relationship they don't vary relationship to the to any t a reasonable policy holder is thinking about it and i think you're you're arguing yourself out of your case there mean you rely on the language all context against the insured and just because it seems to me how really how does one supposed to parse all ensuring they certainly don't need to divorce ourselves from that and that i think is is the plain language but what this case seems to be about is something other than the plain language and what what this judge started looking at is that of looking at the definition  saying that damages means a monetary judgment a war settlement period ok that has to be a monetary judgement at them and it just to be sure that if you have to pay that part of the that kind of judgment it all took picks up prejudgment interest and prospects against the insurer so that i would include attorney fees and it damages means a monetary judgment including prejudgment interest at all costs tax they're reading that as a definition of monetary judgment as part of the damages definition but i think monetary judgment tax cost against the insured is part of monetary judgment part of that concept if you're saying no you don't use that unless you get first of all a standalone monetary judgment and then you can also pick off the insured you can pick up prejudgment interest cost and so correct because in real life you aren't going to get you're not monetary judgment ok now the judgment that issued will be a judgment for what award judgment award it'll be for the definition excludes these things and i want to make sure i'm reading the language right and i'm looking at page three fifty three of the and this is the definition section so if you have something different on the podium on your v a data yeah right and i can see several ways of approaching e costs and interest and so forth when they're part of a monetary judgement and another thing that i thought of is saying well let's give them that let's give them that so that means to me that they have to arise from the demand alleging a wrongful act and then i will two pages later is the definition of wrongful act and it's negligent definition of damages there is a modification you have to have the monetary judgement first where the salmonella award and before you can get the interest and the cost tax against you sure and i'm the hospital systems case and it turns into five million dollars if you accept any of the readings or are you rather like the the problem with that simple people would know they had a hundred thousand dollar limit on the non monetary prove the case that's alleged in the cloning or injunctive relief but if they decided that after all there may be some damages i don't know whether they avoiding damages because they don't want to defeat the class or whatever but in other words if they prove their nine hundred eighty three case those that entitle them to monetary compensation that's a very you know i don't know i don't i don't think the c has appeared before so many times until the supreme court changed the law that he used to bring police brutality cases and he would tell the jury look i know my clients are really unattractive guy  liability so far fetched tenuous there is no duty to defend and the third is the insurance company is obligated to defend claims that are reasons that are subject to the mutual intentions of the parties all of these  they say it's important to distinguish between claims that raise the possibility of coverage because they are on an uncover theory like a contract action rather than a court actions and claims they do not raise the possibility of coverage because  faith we had in this court called blessing vs freestone that the supreme court reversed and in that case they said there was no possibility for any individual in the class even of all the wrong committed to get a nickel right so i suppose that in that class section there would have been a duty to defend up to one hundred thousand dollars if they had this policy yes but even if every wrongs committed just as  make them pay the five million i thought what you would say was saying anything they don't cover we do is like saying if they don't cover medical malpractise rea but you can make that argument it's not a better argument i just see this very clearly as a case where the first five million dollars is covered by the primary and if you drink and there  interpretation that allows for one hundred thousand dollars spent cost only to be paid by the primary then i want to be clear that i don't see any interpretation of these policies that allows it requires carolina to come in and then provide five million dollars worth of excess coverage in terms of planes expenses for the i don't think you're getting what my concern is that the most common access policy is probably the personal role people buy car insurance and they buy fire insurance on their home and the homeowners life policy also as a general why i believe the tax rate that gen y ability excludes professional liability they're all written that way i understand businesses have exactly the same sort of insurance they buy business insurance on all the business vehicles and then they find general liability policy for their business and it excludes professional liability and if they're professionals they find another prefe and they did not add it to their policy or if they were practicing law or medicine and they didn't buy a professional way through the policy it's not covered by the primary policy and under your argument words if a hundred thousand dollars of plain expenses paid the money of liability which is defined as the five million on the definitions page it's reduced by hundred thousand so clearly you haven't exhausted the policy and i think this also or equitable relief combined with damages in that case according to this indorsement there is basically five million dollars worth of insurance available and that's why you agree with the fellow and  make the investment really isn't clear it really is confusing it can be read very logically and i think another thing that's very important to remember is that this is an insured the your typical ensured is not going to dr what if the primary policy only applies to claims expenses up to one hundred thousand dollars and there is no insurance it's not just the one hundred thousand is a policy with it but there is no other insurance for claims expenses in the insured for non monetary relief then why wouldn't both policies that exclude i agree that if there is no coverage for anything except one hundred thousand dollars in claims expenses under the national policy and that is exactly the same situation when carolina that they get to keep their policy like this is part of their policy of one hundred thousand dollars with a claim to expenses and then you pay under your policy if they have to pay anything for attorney's fees if their policy had coverage for their policy by payment of losses then we can and the exceptions does not apply the limit of the obligation of caroline is only likewise to pay one hundred thousand dollars if you took that endorsement with it with the extension endorsement off the policy and you and you read that policy would say i'm covered for this case there's a there's a monetary award requested somebody coming after me for millions of dollars to twenty feet uncovered additional coverage that wasn't there before and that's simply not true what's going on here is that indorsement that is labeled the extension of coverage is traveling with a stealth exclusion if we didn't have that endorsement here in the court today they could not make this argument that endorsements somehow redefinition of liability or is coverage of certain claim expenses and fine when it clearly has it's a funny hybrid because it's clearly a completely spent claim expenses are the expenses also in this case they're defined as a loss that is reducing the limits of liability of the policy and the reason that happens here is a national character if he doesn't want to end up writing this policy and ending up having to pay five point one million dollars so if saying