two insurance companies over a factual issues of who owns up who owned the who own or own who what parties own a certain ambulance and piled in a motor vehicle accident there were three vehicles involved in this country mutual paid for the defense of the ambulance service continental paid for the defense hamel it's named insured in the case the cases the benchley settled with country mutual pain virtually all the two policies again have very similar coverage is there the standard business auto coverage forms connel makes a big argument about that fact that the country polic specifically listed the ambulance in its policy in the business on a coverage form there are certain symbols that are for convert autos the policy applies to you know bottle injury caused by the use of a covered auto be in the country there's argument continuously throughout the briefs of that the ambulance is specifically described on countries oluseyi are listed well as specifically included i'm trying to analyze policy which is much broader for a higher premium and also higher under the cap and a policy it does not write i don't think there's any significance as to the issue of ownership or intent because those policies have no are hearsay documents as to intent they're not done by a any party with foundation knowledge of the ownership intent issue with but also your honor it country policy is limited to only specifically described honestly doesn't cover any on a list so with any other auto other than a specifically described one it wouldn't be covered auto so they had you so the movie covers for those two autos that the ambulance service was using but they have a policy covered that auto also because for it was him who was sued for liability in connection with the operation of a motor vehicle the same ambulance and it insured that vehicle as well it insured it had in the schedule covered autos it had also the possibility of us specifically described autos but that wasn't the symbol used they the broader category of any auto so would include any auto they own any auto they borrowed any auto their quired any auto way the way i read the continental policy and maybe i'm reading it wrong but the way i read the kind of policy it seemed to me that for any auto that continental own or any commandeered auto then continental was the primary insure but for any other covered auto that can now only continental was this was the secondary insure or the access insure correct i think the other insurance costs are virtually identical your honor in both policies and they do state as you just said that for any auto they own or commandeer that their primary any auto they don't know and here are position is that hamil is an owner of the vehicle as the un contradicted testimony from the treasurer of hamilton very insured said they owned it their documents said they owned it and here instead the court the trial court  presumption then you look at the intent of the parties and we're the only party that introduced any evidence as too intense we had the un contradicted intent of the parties that were relevant to the foundational knowledge of the ownership  between two insurance companies as to who's covering these particular costs what's really odd to me is we have an insurance company before us your client act that is basically arguing that the country financial policy does not mean what it says that is very odd to me for an insurance company to be saying well you know don't don't focus on the fact that this particular ambulance is expressly listed as in own auto and you call that you know hearsay in your relevant in all this other stuff i got to tell you just as a matter of impression we don't hear that very often from insurance companies most of the time what insurance companies are doing is saying take this policy and put it under a microscope and shine bright lights on it service or listed as an insurer vehicle you don't have to have only a vehicle to specifically insure a vehicle no no it's the fact that it's listed in item three in that schedule in the country policy triggers the other insurance provision in five  and that's my sense of what your adversary's going to say and when it triggers five day it means the country financial is the primary insurer so and unless mr jaafari surprises me he's going to say yeah you bet it's express is triggered in this an auto accident we're saying that on the other insurance clause they're probably also provides primary coverage for a vehicle that hammo own and then contradicted testimony is that they own it because that's separate the intent of the policy of the ownership is separate from the policy terms there are facts that are plugged into the policy we mean you can have more than one party owner vehicle you know more than one party insure a vehicle and that's what the insurance costs do there's many circumstances where one or more or two or three insurers could all provide primary coverage and then the other insurance clauses says where they do apply the same level on the same basis if your ex or primary each insurer pays their share determined by the pro rata limits why don't you country why did country financial list the ambulance expressively in item three in your view in my view they missed it because they were not going to insure their yamma service wanted an insurance policy for if they are sued well that cover us for our operation of vehicles the ambulance service was just operating ambulances not any autos like the mr pelly so they needed to list it just like you would have in a personal auto policy you would list your own policy your own i'm sorry your own motor vehicle on your personal i don't policy not not any autos to make sure you're insured for that particular your liability or your use of that particular motor vehicle whereas hammo is also being sued for the use of that motor vehicle what if what if hamill was the only one secondary insurance for secondary payer purposes for secondary only if but it only if there their argument on that is only that if it's true that if it just records affirm that they had no ownership at all of this vehicle and when you look at the intent that's the only evidence that came in about the intent of the parties to this vehicle and policies of the energies of hamel in the ambulance service that was the only evidence of ownership it can be rebutted but basically a district court says well i'm not going to allow anything to rebut and i'm just going to go i'm just going to rely solely basically on it's just going to go and the policy of country was not a document related operating they had liability insurance if there wasn't a bodily injury caused an accident and i think again i don't want to repeat myself but i think i think in the cases you're looking at when you look at the things that they relied upon we certainly i think we regarded it with one country of evidence were country would be entitled to summary judgment on the ownership issue and then you would look at the other insurance clauses which if they both own it they say they share on an equal basis i don't program a basis if the coverage is either both access or both primary they share so jaffe and i represent continental western insurance company this is an insurance company versus insurance company case where two insurers represented a single risk in this case an ambulance owned by a hamel ambulance service with your indulgence i'll refer to the ram all ambulance services the joint venture all parties acknowledge that the joint venture was named insured and a policy of insurance issued by country mutual insurance company continental western meanwhile is the insurer for hemel fire protection district just for simplicity i'll refer to that as hamil a serious ambulance and semi truck accident that would ultimately lead to three separate lawsuits each lasting roughly six years continental western stepped up and defended hamel fire country mutual refused to do so is continental western could not be of its insured undefended its stepped up while country mutual stood down now following  successful resolution of the underlying litigation that believe protected confidential westerns ensured continental western filed the suit to recoup the attorney's fees and defense costs and incurred in the defense of the protracted underlying wit mutual has at no point denied that hamil fire isn't insured under the terms of the country mutual policy nd all parties acknowledge that the emblems itself is insured on both policies in the country mutual policy issues of the joint venture it's covered auto i mean their policy it was a covered auto on both the dispositive question here is the priority of coverage between country mutual and continental western as we know from cases like bituminous casualty company versus royal insurance company when two policies potentially respond to the last courts look to each policy's other insurance to determine the proper allocation this is a pretty simple analysis here because the other insurance clauses are virtually identical these are sort of standard forms issued by the insurance services office cloke really called i so the country mutual policy provides primary coverage for owned autos it provides access coverage coverage for not and so this brings us to the dispositive issue because of the coverage continental western contends and the district court agree that the ambulance was an old auto of the joint venture and therefore the country mutual policy provides primary coverage the ownership is determined at the time of the collision intent of the parties must be judged at the time of the collision and so the actual intent of the parties at the time of the clinton is dispositive issue in this case i would p clearly country mutual intended to insure the ambulance as an a one and auto the joint venture they collected premiums on the basis of the ambulance being owned auto of the joint venture continental western intended to insure the ambulance went to country mutual and said the onus ambulance can you please ensure it country mutual said yes that's intent at the time of the collision moreover it's important to note that the ambulances certificate of title this is formulating the joint venture from twenty three years twenty three years before the accident certainly not the time of the collision and just as a brief side note the actual language of the agreement is fairly ambiguous in its own right paragraph eight of that agreement venture were literally everything relating to that ambulance from purchase to the insurance the aftermath of the accident suggests actual ownership by the joint venture indeed the cases cited by country mutual in which the rebuttable presumption of actual ownership was vehicle that was gifted from parents a child with a certain certificate of title wasn't transferred country mutual versus at the life nine hundred and seventy nine cases a seller of a truck went into a store he left a certificate of title on the counter of the store and it was never record case like in the matter of robinson this was again son who failed to record the transfer of a certificate of title from his father none of these resemble obviously the case before this court where two sophisticated municipalities formed a joint venture purchase now beyond the name of that fling venture so circling back to the policy language both policies provide primary coverage for owned autos they provide excess coverage for non owned autos thus country mutual had appeal which is the district courts award of these in defense costs in the amount of two hundred and fifty thousand five hundred and forty dollars and ninety cents so as we know from cases like johnson controls versus admin controls this   from country mutual in cases like medcom holding also talked about the breach the court noted that it need not do a detailed hour by hour review after the fashion of a fee shifting statute found that district courts are best restricted to an overview of quote the aggregate aggregate costs to insure that they were reasonable in relation to the stakes of the case and the litigation strategy but not only notwithstanding this prima facia evidence of reasonableness that we find by payment of the of attorneys fees in defense costs france and other western still did as the district court noted so many hundreds of pages of attorney billing records including the time spent the description of all work completed indeed these were the exact items that country mutual in my view inexplicably argued that continental western did not provide indeed the district court called country mutuals contentions that continental western did not provide this information  district court controls its own schedule controls and some deadlines finally country mutual is claiming that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to hold not potentially every hearing instead of holding an oral argument i'm issue of fees and costs opportunity to make objections to that to the petition in such an instance the only purpose would be for these objections to be restated same as true here after continental western provided the district court with hundreds of pages of detailed billing records country mutual objective they had every opportunity to to object as they saw fit and the district court of course had every right to exercise its discretion so the client to hold would ensure earring because continental western was forced to step up to the plate to only one minute now to go ahead we'll see how it goes if you're making points and are going to cut you off or just on the on the because i just said that ok i mean intent of the insurance policies country did defend insurance companies have no bearing or pop the insurance companies or policy have no bearing on the issue of the intent of ownership of the vehicle which is the only competent evidence is that it was oh and also at a minimum by hamel and with the attorney for the issue your honor our point was the burden under the law was on continental to establish their fees by meeting the factors set forth in the harris case and that kaiser kaiser case these including the reason was that the the fact of skill and standing the journey the nature of the case the now really the question that about the connection between the fees in the litigation so it's not a standard just that oh here's some bills in the like the attorneys any of the journeys that did actually work the point mr mudge was going to be testifying at the evidence you're hearing but that got struck he was out of town so we we put an affidavit in which the court didn't consider but the court then eyestrain the burden