the morning i thought it would be appropriate this today is a day of remembrance for americans it would take a moment to recall the events of twelve years ago in the men and women whose lives were lost in the rows of floors of the twin towers in the fields in pennsylvania and in the hallways of the pentagon in washington d c thinking about what occurred it seems to me that it is proof that in the human heart there's more room for hate than there is for love and the emotion of hate is stronger is an emotion of love and that has been historical and it is continu and it continues every day and until human kind realizes that we are all one and that any difference because of nationality necessary race religion gender sexual orientation economic factors we're still one and i think the lesson we need to remember particularly as warriors because this is our job i believe to reduce pamphlet to seek peace we are the p who died at age twenty seven during world war one in battle the poem was called who made the law and i'm go who spread the hills with flesh and blood and brains who made the law who rule the war on the death to stop the village who spake the word to kill among the she find all things old and know the things they do walk in the garden slumber by the fireside cheer the peace of dawn and dream amid the do those who return but were made the law the railway company i'd like ten minutes from my primary minister reserve good morning writers peter mcleod on behalf of quality terminal services i would imagine about ten minutes from my arguments in it in the event of any claim or suit his brought against indemnified parties arising out of work or form materials from an issue or other activities conducted under the terms of the agreement comma for which contractor is responsible under the terms of the agreement and i think that is a qualifying and limiting phrase to the notice requirement and i would suggest t that that debt notification provision applies only when there is a claim for which q t s is responsible under the contract that's what that says and that the predicate phrase to that says provisions and of the dreaming now i might have written that a little differently but clearly that's part of the same sentence and that's a modifier to preceding phrase ok so mr williams is injured while he's working alone ground and it would be either way it but the n s a has a policy that a crane operator always has to work with crane director on the ground right right but it wouldn't be so they know he is working alone that's corr crane operator locking it and or working with the pin is a crane director and mr williams could have easily have been working as the crane director at the time of this accident as a crane operat but notwithstanding the n s f talked to his partner this team was correct i was in the lunchroom i didn't i didn't know anything so they knew he was working correctly but they did not know the  here working alone is not by itself sufficient to impose any liability on q t s it doesn't necessarily arise out of q t s is x or emissions because mr williams is working alone it's only the fact that q t s told mr williams to work alone that imposes liability  the agreement p t s consistently misstates this notice provision in its brief as requiring notice for claims all arising out of the work performed but as we just discussed discussed you have to read the entire sentence the following clause qualifies and limits that by the words for which contractor is responsible under the provisions of this agreement i'd like to know if interrupting your but sure to me there's a  that i'm aware of was the one in june where there was some love just you just went how the order should read and the judge of them was involved in and set forth how the order should read under roman numeral six of our post trial motion was reserved by a judge and that had to do with rare retirement board issues requiring a remitted or of the lost wages awarded time of the judges june two thousand and twelve how many issues did you raise under roman numerals we raised remitted or issues our r p disability payments either for wages or i guess if you say then that the disability issue was still pending how do you explain judgment william saying it wasn't handing but it's issue she said i'm going to ask you to come back one last time i'm going to give you a record you can take up because a sunni are going to take up this case so that suggests to me that at that point you first judge krink williams for an amount equal to the i r b disability payments it's so it is a reminder it's not just to set off for the tax payments we're looking to attack the entire amount of the verdict his last wage claim which is a key part of the damages element if we had filed a notice of appeal prior to that and sought to set a super serious bond while that's ending we don't know what the amount of that bond should be because we don't know what the amount of the judgment is time and one of those was clearly are married or directed to a large portion of the verdict his claim for future lost wages when he's receiving our disability payments may please the court counsel once again my name is peter mcleod ever present quality terminal services in this case i was addressed three main points today first as what notice requirements to the contract impose upon  f as a condition precedent to seeking indemnification from quality terminal services next unicef's failure to meet those requirements and that is its failure to provide reasonable notice to quality terminal services and lastly being assessed failure to present an appeal issue for your view here with respect to the notice required under the contract with unicef asked the court to ignore its contractual notice obligation suggesting that under the contract it was required to give notice only when it had reason to believe that q t s might events and one of those triggering events is when a claims asserted against b s after which q t s is responsible but notice is also triggered by a second event a claim being asserted against the n s f that arises out of work performed by  also referenced the last clause of the nos provision and implied that modified the entirety of it however that last class modifies the second event portion of the arising out of work performed materials furnished or other activities conducted under the terms of this agreement then you get the last clause is the disjunctive that creates the two distinct obligations under the contract to provide notice quality terminal services however even if the court were to focus solely on the first triggering event the result would be the same which brings me to my next point under patric motion for directed verdict can only be granted in those very limited cases where the evidence went in the light most so overwhelmingly favors the movement movement that no country for it can stand and b s f simply can't meet that high standard and it particularly a directed verdict is inappropriate whereas here there is any evidence together of the reasonable and inferences to be drawn there from demonstrating a substantial factual dispute here there was significant evidence of such a dispute over the course of several days following this julian's accident on august twenty first two thousand and three b s f conducted two separate investigations including an investigation conducted by kevin bell who was their claims representative claims manager responsible for providing huge yes that notice pursuant to the agreement and thus within days of the accident b s of the following first th them she was sitting in the locker room reading a book at the time or having a lunch at the time that the injury occurred seventh that is a railroad worker mr williams so avenue of redress for workplace injury was via the federal employees liability act which has a very low causation threshold and eighth that it terminated mr williams the same night that he reported a workplace injury that's whether examining the n s a s notice obligation under either triggering event unicef possessed knowledge that mr williams was injured while working  supervision of q t s while he was working the ron thomas job assignment violating company rules thus within days of the incident yes i knew that mr williams claimed he had sustained sustained a workplace injury while working alone and being a stuffed was obligated at that point requisite notice to q t s now if there's any doubt in b s s might be s s mind at that point that mr williams was actually going to pursue a claim based on his injury that that was a race from being a soft received a letter from mr wayne's attorneys dated december fourth two thousand and it was given this confirmation yes i did nothing subsequently b s f received an additional letter from a separate set of attorneys in march of two thousand and five notifying them of the claim and then in august of two thousand and six they receive we learned that he had been directed by a q t s supervisor to work along well i suggest you're out of the inference like me drawn from the facts is that he was working under the supervision of a q t s wrap manager at the time so any job assignment that he had had to the argument that the n s a s notice was not reasonable to the contrary the way the evidence leads the opposite conclusion that the s s early for your delay in providing notice of mr williams claim was unreasonable and given these facts b s f cannot meet the high burden out and we would cross that is that is absolutely correct roger the point here is that at the end of that hearing judge mcwilliams says so your motion is denied q t s motions the night she says nothing about and there the appellate court noted the longstanding rule that a litigant failure to obtain a ruling on a motion does not translate into a denial of the motion by the court rather as this court discussed in commerce trust company versus their first aviation companies three six six alvarez three five eight eleven thirty five five five out of the fourth district two thousand and five where is your party subsequently thousand notice of appeal without obtaining a ruling on the motion the motion is deemed have been abandoned the parties precluded from seeking appellate relief bus as the purported movement move it it was being assessed obligation to obtain a ruling from the trial court before filing its nose of appeal b s f did not do that and failing to do so was abandon any motion for directed verdict that it may have had therefore there's no  submission doesn't take any additional one way or the other as to whether this court has jurisdiction we simply note that there are these two threshold problems that this court must resolve before reaching the merits which is if an oral denial posts from motions taxation issues a frankly the request for a minute it was invalid in any event because the jury did not hear any evidence of relating to disability payments so there was that their quest for a minute it was a proper on its face but b and i sat did not ask for a minute  was wrongly decided or that much pain as analysis is somehow in a political year instead simply cites to a different eight circuit decision right this is of concern missouri railroad company for the proposition that under some circumstances it is not an abuse of discretion to admit evidence of emanation we do not doubt that but it is beside the point in this appeal in this appeal be n s f must demonstrate the judgment blames his decision to exclude this evidence was so obviously arbitrary fanciful or return to work at the railroad because of his injury when in fact the plaintiff had been working in the railroad for about two months after his injury and was terminated about two months after his injury one day when he left work early and was found by railroad inference that was created by the plaintiff obviously that's a simply a different factual scenario from what we have here but even under the circumstances what the appellate court found that that decision the trumpets finding with the door was opened was a reasonable on the opening the door determine you don't open the door with evidence that is so obviously relevant that it must be admitted you only open the door to irrelevant and evidence and it's admitted for the limited purpose of rebutting a prejudicial inference must follow a supervisor's orders there was a point of contention at trial because the n s f claimed that it had an empowerment policy under which an employee had the right to refuse a supervisor what is an escalated the being assessed written testified that mr williams told him that he swung me five i am like a baseball bat against the n and mr ship opined that that was an unsafe thing to do and it was an improper use of that pool in or a budding that both does but to the extent it did be n s f has no one to blame for that but it's on trial counsel i'd like to briefly response or the arguments raised in the briefs on me our household services issue as we explain notice of something that happens if there's any doubt about it he can notice and you would insurers carrier but q t s is not a remote insurance carrier they are an newgrounds twenty four hours a day seven days a week and notice those and just sit out there and avoid notice triggers responsibilities on their part are they half they are required to assume the defense of the claim immediately and accident or other invent involving personal injury or property damage or the terminal didn't do they are calling in a cell supervisor to take mr williams to the hospital they they absolutely met that obligation but that is a pure notice provision you notice you give us notice of it and then whatever happens happens in contrast in the indemnity provision if being a seven gives q t s notice of a claim for which q t s is responsible under the agreement huge a self but being assessed notice to q t s does impose an obligation and that with respect to the terminations evidence i would suggest discipline issue was raised and we say can our brief at page thirty two of our brief and in one mr shop said i would have told him not to do it but the question was you would have disappointed him correct if you saw him doing that again so there's an implication that if mr williams had been doing it incorrectly he should have been disciplined and he wasn't but we could have discipline him because he no longer worked for b and s out charge of their direction otherwise you would be subject to discipline correct so the implication is again that because mr williams wasn't case in which there were two competing post post drama oceans one was timely the husbands the wife's was untimely one the husband's post trial motion was finally decided the wife appealed from that in the uk pull off course found implicit in the decision is the court's retention of complete jurisdiction until after the disposition of the last time we file post trial motion as long as any parties family first post trauma lotion remains under s'posed the underlying judgement is not final notice of appeal is premature incomplete jurisdiction filed within thirty days of the judgment it does not address this it's not a motion directed to the judgment right but it's a personal satisfaction but judge i i would respectfully suggest that a motion for a minute or is a motion directed for to the