and that quote is as follows assuming that i remember correctly a foolish consistency is the how about one little mind and i would suggest to the court that view of consistency may in literary circles be appropriate however that view of consistency in the fort of law is an approach because consistency and predictability are hallmarks of our judicial system and with regard to this particular case the record here is replete with inconsistency which  are are not minor they're not insignificant in fact they're certainly not foolish but rather they rise to the level of what i hearing a oral argument with respect to the motion to reconsider on that day when the motion to reconsider was argued or presented to the board that was the sole issue presented to the court he seem to be spending a lot of time on the other people and why did he change his mind with didn't even file a petition because he was the trial judge who decided his motion to dismiss was improperly denied any changes by what's the issue in gesture maybe i should should  k to the point schumer rather than later ok point is not be issue that you just address but he could change his mind under those circumstances those procedural circumstances with regard to national guard he could not with regard to the other defend the point here is he could change his mind what i'm what i'm troubled by in this case is this the case if we were to affirm in this case goes back to the case who paid us here do we know on this record who's going to have to pay why isn't that what you're seeking to find out your question of who pays is a very very serious question in this piece of litigation and you correct that is what brings us with the court ultimately we believe under the status of the underlying litigation where the few gateshead not allege any independent tort with regard to st john's hospital the only claim with regard to st john's hospital is one of the parent agency and your honor we believe that we had in place a sophisticated in a related program with regard to contractual obligations they're protected chain john's hospital up to a point we understood that after three million dollars was expended by national guardian that we might have exposure but we certainly didn't believe that we had exposure for dollar one nor do we believe that we had exposure for three independent physicians contractual relationships that we had in place were going to be enforced or not which meant that each of the physicians had one million dollars in coverage for a total of three rather that one million dollars shared among three individual positions which reduced it to a situation of having three hundred thirty three thousand three hundred thirty dollars and thirty three cents worth of coverage rather than a million dollars which all of the documents required them to  which stands for the proposition that with regard to a court making a determination with regard to indemnification issues the insurance carrier and the insured that that should not be done yeah ye the issues in the underlying court claim are substantially similar to the issues in the record judgment acro such that a decision in the parent who judgment action would have a recluse of  cases that is to say the underlying few gate case and the current declaratory judgment action case are not substantially somewhere in fact i don't even think they're similar the few gate case is a medical malpractise case the question is whether one or more of the discovered somehow some way that national guardian was taking the position that read then having insurance coverage for each of its emergency room physicians who were on duty at st john's hospital providing care to give them a response from unity rather than have one million dollars coverage for each of those physicians there was going to be a shared limit and so therefore the protection that st john's hospital thought they had bargained par have standing to pursue that absolutely yes because they were parties to the contract in addition to the declaratory judgment action statute provides that you don't have to be in  with the other party you don't have to be a third party beneficiary the language of the statute indicates that anyone interested in the controversy will certainly under those circumstances st john's hospital would satisfy the standing requirement with rightness would it be right yes because st john's hospital wants to know whether or not the contractual relationships that it entered into were going to be honored and enforced by the parties  and therefore it was right because they were entitled to know whether they had three million dollars worth of protection or whether they had something less than that because that has found a poses a financial burden on them not me  insurance laws not my strong suit culture i'm trying to trying to struggle here the cliff notes version of what this case is about on the churns cover which is what i'm trying to get that is according to st john's you folks think you of coverage for him under a policy with national guardian of how much well what do you think you're entitled to coverage we believe that each emergency room physician has a minimum of one million dollars average per current per current per physician yes your liability for any of that would kick in to tell first so be there are three of them i think they were sued one million dollars per coverage each year that exhausted by the entrance company yes and then it would be liable for something in excess of that yes to hear you understand their position is a no no which is one million dollars total are what what what is what is your with st john's position that they're entitled and you have one million dollars coverage for what is the insurance company then they'd probably have indicated to us in discovering responses in the underlying lawsuit that there is a shared limit transaction meaning that those three physicians do not have one million dollars each they have to share one million dollars amongst them so each of them really in reality has a third of one million dollars in coverage that's what they're contending so we think that we have are going far and have an existence a three million dollar buffer before st john's closed that's now been reduced to one million dollars so we drop down to a level of one million dollars at which time we now have to spend our own money in terms of indemnifying the plaintiffs for the injuries that we know from experience that the over rowing with your civil cases are subtle we know from experience that even more than the overwhelming majority probably every civil case there is settlement discussions and  that's not in the record but in the underlying case a mediation was scheduled and a mediator retained and we spent the day in mediation just settle the case and the defendants in this my name is michael walsh i represent national guard in risk retention that's the insurance company in this particular case they have a contract of insurance with a company called central illinois emergency physicians l l  central illinois emergency physicians contract with the national guard for insurance they are there the named insured in a policy and insurance that is one of the issues in this particular case what has happened here is that we filed a motion to dismiss before judge the motion to dismiss was based on a host of different issues including right from this because there was no actual controversy involved in this particular case filed his complaint for summer and for there to a judgment based on a host of different requests they included i want to know notification i want to sue the doctors for breach of contract of their staff privileges i want to finding of all these obligations and response of the judge should initially denied our motion and then he realized as a good trial judge would  by courts on issues of policy coverage especially when based on denial of coverage it's a coverage question that's what declaratory judgments are there is not an issue of coverage in this particular case national guardian risk retention group provided counsel for each one of the additional shirts and to the policy of insurance dr van de dr mcdaniel and d they provided attorneys they have an expert who is defending those three individual physicians based upon three visits by mrs few gate to an emergency department over a course of i think eight or nine days which then leads to the question of what occurrence it is if we ever got them under the law in the state of illinois occurrence as outlined in the policy of insurance those america many times you come in to the emergency department in a set number of days it's that if it's the same ailment the contract of insurance is one million dollars per occurrence three million dollars in the aggregate it is a shared policy limited liability it doesn't mean that each one of the emergency room physicians has three litigation is a medical malpractise case before you representing national guardian i'm not in that case i'm not a party that there are three emergency room physicians who work through c n i epeat who s well technically maybe even two maybe not even a third size that your birth is a big question there eleven other defendants in that there are fourteen defendants in this medical malpractise case that is currently going up make up fourteen mr nestor mentioned some of the discussions he also should mention based upon what is recently transpired he has a pending motion for summary judgment in the underlying lawsuit civil cases especially medical malpractise case are subject to discussion for possible so absolutely seems to me one of the difficulties are you talking about settlement is the three million dollars we're no this is sound serious how much of that is what saint john's how much of any of it might be subject to st john's or any of the other people  patient before she came into the yard what happens if the jury hits that particular individual with nothing to do with national guardian's policy what happens if they hit one doctor who is the emergency room physician meticulous patient but not the other two billion dollars there it is there's no dispute it's a million what plan is councils asking for here isn't it if we're going to go down that road and medical malpractise cases then every single plaintiff's attorney who actually may have standing because he's a tort claimant would file the clear torrie judgment actions and their medical malpractise actions in every single case because i want to find out indemnification for everybody they know the position that we have taken they know the case they know what one million per three million in the aggregate means plaintiffs looking for really in response to a declaratory judgment action we all know this the parties to the trade and intended third party beneficiaries to the contract with respect to the insurance policy in this particular case insurance including the emergency room physicians have standing as well that's where it ends st john's hospital is not referenced in the contract in any way shape or form illinois law they may be considered a incidental third party beneficial because there are some money being thrown out of nowadays it is not enough to pursue a career toward drudge work absolutely none it is now touched on that you need to have an actual controversy and they don't have it now that's not to say that this lawsuit can't be brought later if they think they have standing with respect to contracts but what they're asked neither under what circumstance the case goes where a rock it goes bad there's a big huge verdict st john's takes over the one million over one million dollars the e r docs are all hit the same chance pays money they can turn around and say they can sue the emergency room physicians the emergency room physicians can subrogate their rights over to st john's the plan is counsel and come over to the the insurance company and say your policy says really one million per doctor per currents as opposed to one million per there is a remedy there but right now the courts being asked to provide advisory opinions on something that has not happened the issue here is is there a particular contract and as a consequence they have no standing to bring the lawsuit and the lawsuit isn't right so you say the lawsuit isn't right now i just want to ask you about the murphy case in my reading the mur doesn't create some type of exception to the general notion that you know you're not looking at liability yet so it's not right it seems to be an exception to the stop pool and of course that case involves a totally different actual scenario than what we have here what are your thoughts on your honor as we've outlined you know i'm sorry i'm out of time but i have seen to you're absolutely right and if you review the were used in this case which is clearly we've talked about earth's ok and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this as a matter of fact there was a judgment that was ranter to default judgment that then triggered that so the judgments the key there isn't a judgment in this particular case there's fourteen defendants and the underlying  we don't know what's going to happen here and asking this court for advisory opinions on something that might now come to fruition is a waste of this court's time and judgments and that's the reason why when he reconsidered what was going on he said you know wh there is no standing here the hospital isn't is there a party beneficial and this isn't even right we're not even here yet once it becomes right the right party can file something and it could very well be mr reflected on me ten twenty thirty and then we had a motion for reconsideration hearing back in january of two thousand and fourteen i made arguments on behalf of both of those two defendants reiterating the points standing in the race that were raised on be aware you see i filed a motion to dismiss and the basis of that motion was there that a reading of the policy provides no basis to conclude that has any obligations and the monies for anyone unless they are there simply to accept notice of suit on behalf of the insurance company that's being said to the extent that the court finds that national guardian is right that there's no standing with respect that policy and the court finds that the national guard is correct that this matter is not right now there is no reason why those decisions should not apply with people or c c i and the reason being is easy i is similarly situated as a national guardian for purposes of the allegations and any inconsistency with respect to ruling for don't see any reference to hospital generally in their contract so to the extent that the hospital makes arguments that we must consider all of these contracts together i think that's just factually incorrect what we have to do is look at the fact that i that's the policy and unless there is any ambiguity with respect to the terms of the policy that this court any court has no reason to look beyond the four corners of the document we've been here for a long time in this case and to date there has never been any reference to any ambiguity in the insurance policy hospitals had many opportunities to demonstrate what about mr minister's claim the distinction is whether it's one million dollars per one million dollars for the three  understand that that's a question that he thinks in ambiguous but the question isn't what the terms of the contract are ambiguous is what term in the contract could be deemed to provide the hospital with any standing to argue about the contract that so there needs to be some in big u t that may be deemed to consider the hospital as someone who is you know a part of the contract and we know that's not the case or be some term some provision that allows it to have standing as an intended third party beneficiary so to the extent that there are ambiguous terms in the in policy itself is a red herring the issue that the scorches be looking at is what term in this policy could possibly be rad to give the hospital any type of standing to ask for an indication of the hospital or the that the court declare that c h p is in breach of the contract that the physicians group has with the hospital and according to the hospital that requires that the physicians group have physicians who each have a million dollars i physicians so to the extent that that physicians out now are down to this issue ok let's say that one of those physicians is found liable in one of them is not we have a situation where one physician has been found liable and there'll be one million dollars in coverage and that's exactly what the hospital requests similarly but we don't know how the cases go on because we don't know how juries are there's a possibility that the total drug in this case can come in at less than a million dollars in that situation again there's not going be an necessarily predicated on a finding in terms of what the policy itself if this court or whatever judgment or whatever court comes that exclusion that's how she actually says a million dollars per physician then there is no breach c i if you will have satisfied it's contractual obligations for the hospital and we can all go home that case isn't right and until that case becomes right the issue with regard to whether cia has breached contract right  you know to the extent that the court disaster the hospital they're asking for a determination that c h p has breached the agreement by not providing three million dollars in coverage i think that is not at this time appropriate in light of the fact that it may never be appropriate because there may never be a reason to have three million dollars needed for coverage that doesn't ever happen for a jury verdict similarly there may never be three doctors who are found liable is focusing on them if there's ever an issue of that nature that every court case underlying court case file must be tried  get those cases and never the stuff that's the position they've staked out in this particular case and the reason is because we don't know we don't know what the value of the cases we don't know what did the defendants will be found guilty we don't know whether be found guilty and some will be exonerated we don't know the the dollar amount of the verdict we don't know the contributory negligence of the plaintiff perhaps that means there's a guarantee that every time there is a discussion or debate brings us here there's absolutely no doubt about that but there may be other cases that have been filed or that have yet to be filed involving malpractise claims arising out of emergency room care at st john's hospital and this very issue may arise again we want a declaration that our view of the world describe our view as represented by at least four or five distinct contractual promises that each of the emergency room physicians has one million dollars in coverage that's what we bargain far that's what we negotiated that's what the executed contract provide and we believe that one title to know that because two years ago when those emergency room physicians were present then that coverage is triggered i don't think there's any doubt that st john's his standing i don't think there's any doubt education and in addition one point that i failed to make earlier in my statement to the board that is with regard to third party beneficiary claim we have claims that st john's is a their party beneficiary of the insurance policy and i would suggest to the court that in our briefs we've established that one in terms of the well we have the facts of the complaint that stands is true and t whether such an entity or person is a third party beneficiary of a contract is a fact specific inquiry based on the contract itself and the running circumstances of the contract in terms of  if anything is premature it was premature for the trial judge to rule that change on's hospital was not a third party that fishery under the circumstances at the motions are dismissed or anything for that tha