the multitude of issues in this case it's complexity we are very familiar with the issues and the record and as you've probably seen we will be engaged in a dialogue with you about these issues jelly it steals contribution ideality has been satisfied now this particular issue specifically has not been addressed by this court or any other district but it's  rule of mutual exculpation applied and that by having purchased insurance that they were going to parties agree that insurance would be looked to soley in the event of loss ok and in those cases that's all that was needed the insurance kiko also on the insurance but we protected the fair pretty plaintiff that the court i think contemplating what might happen in the situation where the insurance wouldn't be enough when a little bit tovar in its an and they also looked at the contract to determine the parties intent but they thought it was important that in addition to an insurance provision there was also an end to any profession and so the keel court said well the insurance provision is going to be deemed to be the first line of protection implicitly and in their decision is the conclusion that if the insurance is not enough last is bigger is more then that's not the end of the question then we have to move on and deal with what to do with this additional law right i think jimmy case left open what happens when there's no portion that of said that that you could not allow the insurance policy to touch a loss and then contribution on top of that because otherwise the third party plaintiff would be obtaining a double recovery but the same bos ok when you look at the contrast in this case what was the intent of the parties to joliet steel and power and i think it's really clear that there are three contracts that were in effect you know power in their own or power  but at any rate when an intern medication profession requests indemnity but only to the extent of the losses arising out of the sub's work that is contribution well i  yes that's all we have that's why we have so wouldn't you and your re agree this policy the was purchased only protected power for claims against it for it we understand this insurance is about secondary liability if power paid a million dollars from this insurance policy on it by the insurance policy for its secondary liability then how does it have contribution r contribution but in this case and in crime such as the jimmy case where the insurance does not fully protect then power and any other third party plaintiffs would have the right to seek contribution curious liability or secondary liability and direct i believe they don't talk that they talk don't talk about the policies of the insurance policies or structure they don't really maybe some of them talk about the contract language but they don't implicate you say it is of secondary liability and primarily but our case does because we know our contract the contractor talking about here provides for insurance for secondary liability and we know that the insurance policy only covers secondary liability so don't we have to figure out how in our case those distinct idea is secondary level the or somebody can say ok here's here's this injury or this bad thing that happened you defended are responsible for this percentage of good and you'll defend and be responsible for determine who's responsible for the that injury and now when we determine responsibility i mean portioning mom now the next thing is how are those par distribution between the two parties jamie and still against the fifty thousand dollar loss or would there be eight contributions trial percentages determined and that those percentages against the two hundred and seventy five thousand dollars that they were ok which are actually took a attorneys involved in which every case and it never went to trial unfortunately they settled b hundred twenty five twenty five of the two seventy fight so if it went to trial on just the fifty thousand first of all it's not like contribution trials have a dollar amount you know the jury of course answers like they did in this case without knowing it was two point six seven three and they said it was thirty five percent jelly it's still sixty five percent power and you know when you sort the percentages out of chile it still is responsible for nine hundred thirty five thousand five hundred percent at the one point six seven three that was not covered by the insurance well that flies in the face of perceived now which even the jimmy case  twenty five fish i can do this fifty thousand dollars left go back and have a contribution trial to the extent of the fifty thousand dollars that's what they say now it said if you miss it says it says jenny may seek contribution to the extent of it fifty thousand dollars loss that means that if a jury apportions the faults in a manner where steals a program a share would exceed two hundred twenty five thousand dollars let's say steele was found now ninety percent of all and i'm going to make up these numbers a little but ninety percent of all their provider share would be let's say two hundred fifty thousand dollars so still would have to pay another twenty five thousand dollars to jimmy ok it doesn't thirty five thousand and some odd dollars right the million dollar insurance policy it provided at purchase to pay the premiums that is the first line of protection that protected power for joliet steals contact's neg power as being responsible for somebody else if the supreme court's most recent statement and all of these ideas neither one of you cited i wasn't bringing up the standard you know but i just tell you that the supreme court has spoken all this in the other one of you told us about it but with that wonderful courts they  eighty degrees different over there with a totally different from contribution where part is sheer liability for their direct to wholly different idea and that's what we're struggling with if you can't really give us any idea your liability arising out of someone else's contract pay for directly ability well because somebody at the insurance company determined that they would defend power without reservation and so they said and and they paid and they paid you know i think when a case settles i mean nobody is thinking oh are we paying this money because it's right by felony or because i carry a slight belletti they're paying it because they believe there's some right felony and i think when the case went to attack you know you a little back room i did try to chase and in that case the allegations were that there was a construction job site loyola university up on the north side and they were building a new building power was a general expressly stated that it was to cover power it was to cover power in feet the no your honor again correctly pointed out to the exclusion in the cincinnati policy that stated conduct of the insurance business their policy juliet rule that the cincinnati policy was to cover power it's why they want to get these united foreign policy which we call in the very next page of my brief which does apply to the contribution now one of the enemies here is that when we got to the point where we negotiated a settlement in the case and we took the position of being joliet united ireland you should forgive part of your received upwards of about five hundred thousand dollars get the very company the same now that their contribution liability has been extinguished by a policy that since it insurance they had nothing to do with their sale those are some of presents the numbers sixty five thirty five and to me it's a would go against it she hundred seventy five thousand it would go his two hundred seventy five thousand dollars but the company that seeking the contribution can only receive the fifty because they whatever the rest of the numbers they have is more than the nine hundred thirty five the united person is responsible for the entire nine hundred thirty five thousand dollars which the jury decided the jury would full jury trial  right the jury decided that thirty five percent of the two point seven million would pay thirty five percent of the total liability and that they never knew the number two point seven but thirty five percent of the two point seven million would be the mystified that it be intricacies of insurance small when in every case that we encountered were personally seen defendants jockeying to figure out whose policy has to be tendered who's policy has to at the beginning of the case what what does this policy humph and there's an awful lot of law about this language very similar to what we have in our policy be interpreted in those other things and they generally interpret to mean this idea if i care is a secondary liability versus directly that i can speak to the great greater body of bad fish in your honor i'm going to confess that that is not something that i have mastered but i would say this a reasonable reading and reading take from it as an attorney and some has done this for twenty years is that exactly what i suggested a few minutes ago is that when we have overlapping scopes of work if i become liable need a general contractor for operations that are right out of one of my sons work then dead that's it doesn't mean i'm responsible for their negligence necessarily dead that would be a vicarious issue but i can be directly liable for work where the general contractor or the construction managers work is most of this it from the scope of work it ends up in the actions that end up causing the causing an injury to a worker those are the subcontractor didn't cover themselves by they could not provide insurance to power to cover power for that direct liability they could not do that that wouldn't do that violate the ideas that we all agree no other cases don and the reason why we're spending this forty five minutes is that we are struggling to find an answer so that we can make the right a cogent opinion so that in the  or at least interpreted or characterized through a legal framework there was no objections the assignment we went in a second time there is no objection to the assignment they issue the keep it simple work the simplest is weaved but if it's not waived if we look at black course you can assign  says he signs it for power in its insurers and then in the conference in the confirmation assignment that was found at one point in time he makes it crystal clear i am records as a lawyer i'm representing cincinnati insurance for power i'm representing list every single insurance company they were all present and at this point in time they no company that was part of this settlement has ever come forward and challenge the assignment so the case law is proceeded you know i did a motion to dismiss saying that the real party in interest was not a part of was now bringing the action and they should have and that will probably an interesting the insurers and i think that you know i mean there are other cases you sickness confirmation saying we were there with the lawyers we as is an office of the court i am a lawyer for cincinnati and this is what they want i know but it wasn't just cincinnati it was just the attorney for s this document would assume or understand it means power and it's inhuman i would assume that that's why they put that in there but i this is what i thought i would you know i truly believe that that i the insurers there will produce an interest and they there was no indication on that document on the original to revise the complementary and if they ever even saw any of those that they agreed to it there you know the one attorney because they are but that confirmation of assignment was months after the case was dismissed and i just don't know that an attorney can find an insurer that it's not even representing it's insured anymore but i am going  just what did what did the proteas intend to happen ok and i think if you just look at the construction contracts chile and powell were understood and agreed that joliet steel would protect another one point seven or not and now because that one million dollars and i just want to just read you something really quick for mamma call the monocle case the course they are said we'd find the parties manifest with the intention that the insurance provided by cho sed on behalf of state farm was to protect against any personal liability to job as well as state farm we cannot believe that joe's would intend the insurance for any other person purpose than to protect itself from a suit such as this and i think that is exactly the situation we have here surely it still purchase some insurance not only to protect our but you picked itself and i think in doing so it must get credit for that one million dollars otherwise it's paying power twice for the same loss i think you all so much thank you very much this case will be t