given two separate awards against reporter metal transportation however metal transportation file bankruptcy and has not paid other than a small amount on the first award they have not paid the additional balances that  that they were so insured and it was signed an in house adjuster to the case after the first word was entered and was actually we were attempting to enforce in the state of utah was informed that they were filing bankruptcy worker's compensation a word against i believe state farm and was denied and the decision in that case had stated that they would not be able to collect it without filing a separate action and on the prior appeal there was no resolution as to what that having hearings i mean typically they would give us the phone number of an adjuster or a contact person at the insurance company we will and contact them provide them said something that you're obligated to ask or does the employer just typically believe the employer was volunteered that information because if they have an insurance company that they're not the one that's going to handle the claims and so you contact the important you say we have a worker's compensation i'm going to talk to you in order to you know in order to determine whether the benefits august and november are august and veteran station pay them pay those benefits directly why would they do that if they were insured i we really never got an explanation other than the fact that i think it one point there was a reference to the fact with having to report an additional claim and so they attempted to handle it themselves and then once it became one state i guess what it works center and then they've started filing bankruptcy and realized that the claim was bigger than what they thought it was well a it goes to trial there's a judgment against you right and a couple years later you find out that the person that you can't collect from had insurance how would you go about well getting anything from state farm  it was the person over there that failed to tell us that a claimant in file that i did did the bad deed in this case metal transportation for apparently making you think or making client think that they were self insured right well and that obviously i mean it if you simply state farm in a separate one and they would come up with all these defenses right and if they prove those defenses are valid based on whatever circumstances present then i would so i've seen them those cases would would be handled based on what defenses they serve it i mean if they're saying based on for example in this case one of the counts as a regards to the the  therefore we cannot proceed against them based on the terms of the policy because they did not comply with those provisions one of our contentions is that actually in this case the actual insurance policy does not have language  in their own insurance policy i mean they state that we are directly in primarily liable to any person title benefits pale by this insurance and those persons may force our duties and its enforcement maybe against us or against or against you one file bankruptcy you know and so i mean because of obviously for example if you're working for caterpillar and they tell you hey we're self assured you feel proceed against them and then later on they say oh by the way we do have some respect talk to them in the interest of well we're not going to pay this caterpillar  between you know the employer and their insurance company as to how to work out the potential breach of the insurance contract you know and so either that or they work out something and they say fine you know but hey listen we understand that we're going to be on the hook for something our premiums are going up or you know there's there's some other way to to resolve that but in this case that's that they didn't occur i mean metal went out of basically i mean they they reorganize and they you know but but they haven't paid i mean and they refused to pay and they file bankruptcy on it and whether there's any assets we've been attempting to try to determine whether they have any assets and we found them so we've been able to collect it from the employer so i think that's the problem is  difference and the scenarios i think joseph area which is a large part of our complaint is the fact that if you've got an auto accident and you've got you know a case involving state farm or some other company you employer does not pay the compensation for which he or she is liable then an insurance company which may have insured such an employer shall become primarily viable to pay the point and so you know it's our position that this language says that hey you know if notified we were notified they are now are primarily liable they are they they are liable and instead of the transportation because those transportation did not pay it so it's our position that  could they possibly litigated all these other issues when they were denied the opportunity to even include them in the case and so it's porous best to conduct lateral stoppel that would not apply the judge bright also addressed the issue of subject matter jurisdiction as to whether we also include the actual copy of the insurance policy that were referenced that a little bit in reverse of what we believe is the fact that the policy does not give them defenses you know in regards to not paying this claim especially in light of the fact that language and so it's our position the fact that portion of the contract actually also supports the fact that they are in fact by terms of their own insurance policy responsible pay the same for this plan are third account is the rigors to of certain premiums that they are still owe and so it's our position obviously this was an ongoing case at that time and if you look at some of the litigation the follow tween a i g and metal transportation there was was that hey you know we settled all claims and you know and you were supposed to go and handle those and you didn't do it you know because the saver still has it and so obviously it was it was metal transportations position based on their responses filed nor that this claim was part of that settlement part of the bank they still maintained all of their kinds of you know regards to that but again i mean at that time that was a supplement of all plans and that was that was the purpose of that settlement and if you look at the subsequent litigation between the two you know and that's part of the record as well is is the affidavits that were filed by the transportation in that subsequent litigation which specifically states that hey you know you breached that bankruptcy stipulation because you didn't pay this a claim and so because it's our position that a e g has received their premiums they went to court in that subsequent litigation and obtain additional judgment as well for a million and seven dollars and so i mean they've they've actually it kind goes back to the whole issue of what would normally happen in a case like this and you know i think normally a case like this you would have the employer and the insurer working out something in regards to how to resolve  says first and foremost that the employer is primarily responsible for the payment benefits there's also provisions in the human way act which say in instances of borrowing and loaning employers that depending upon the circumstances one of those types of employers may be primarily responsible for the payment benefits person is the other brought the act still states that first of all before you can make any employer to investigate and protect its policyholders as well awful to protect its own interests the purpose of the notice provisions in all of these policies varies is the same purposes they have afford section six of the workers comp stage give employer poirot as insurance carrier wire notice so they can ask again and protect their interest i ask this instances in which that happens morally result in something bad happening to the employer who because their insurance coverage is jeopardizing their acting on their own right but it does happen from time to time i myself one of her court hearings with judge bryant he had acquired if an employee real or a yes sure inch coverage they supposed to notify some yes and i believe i had to research that for right and i supplied the answer to him somewhere in the record and finding if necessary yes the employer is supposed to notify the worker's comp commission a little help i have this coverage and is that this issue and you polk or correctly decided you didn't get this insurance carrier notice they didn't have a chance to prepare they suffer substantial prejudice as a result and even even though also concerned with the rights of the public especially where the insurance coverage is mandated by statute and this is that what we have here this insurance coverage is mandated by statute and in fact you know your policy has the language and protect our interests we're not even here they're not it they're not citing section four g it's all right we are responsible for paying them but they say they do not have to make you a party to the worker required well it's also required to have insurance to drive an automobile or stay and one of the cases i cited in my read is american standard versus life and in that particular case the driver going down some country road put somebody in kill them failed to report the accident kept it a secret for five years before finally someone confessing to the police yes i did give us or agent the names and addresses of all injured persons and witnesses lockley give us all notices demands legal papers cooperate with us  their very notice provisions and duties of the policy holder in the event of crimes as set forth in its policy very very similar to the notice provisions  go forward with one i hear but at the same time the fact that you're not getting anything out of the employer should my painting create a lot of anxiety on his part before proceeding with  trial because something is going on which isn't one which is a cop and unfortunately for the plaintiff here that's what happened it wasn't and it was the employer oh not the insurance order to make an employer in your room in order to make the employer liable you've got to give them prior notice an opportunity heard you want to make sure it's carrier liable make sure they've got a prior notice period that's consistent with the ahead to the baker city then thinking that it would be your position that whatever claims he has or were part of the settlement with metal transportation were ones where you agreed you had coverage because you had noticed or for whatever reason there was coverage whereas in a case like this had it been considered  between mel transportations and they actually yes the or whatever occurred in the bankruptcy court in new york i know there were one or two other claim workers comp claims brought against metal transportation in roughly the same year i believe both were paid i can premium that was owed and the bankruptcy greenman it isn't a good the third point is for there are many complaints i think it's quite clear just deals with claims arising out of the bankruptcy they don't really grasp the payment of any other workers compensation and mr gregory said well you know when this was a further litigated in the state court of new york  obtained summary judgment against middle transportation for its failure to pay premiums pursuant to the bankruptcy are human and the only case health transportation pointed to say they didn't honor their dream was case why don't we just call this case a garnishment action not a worker's comp separate action then they have the opportunity to come into court and to present their defenses and say hey policy has this link or this was done wrong or or you know this is the reason why we don't pay and it gives them that opportunity which clearly they pat and  never says hey you know if you don't give us time we noticed or we may not have to pay this claim or we are you know you know the employer may get stuck with this or you know there's nothing in that policy that explains what those remedies would be for whatever and then we came back so we were noticed that we were came back in march and in the meantime we noticed them yet again double checked on the insurance coverage and there was nothing found so it's forest you know that type of thing there was no