underlying discrimination lawsuit didn't get too far until there was a settlement didn't get too far i don't know exactly what their coverage was at the time that that the kilometer or the defense cost them it seems to me this indemnity is really what the big where the big money is in revocation of attorney jim brown's admission states and nowhere in his ruling is there any application of the so called acorn as dot dot doctrine where the court is is charged with the responsibility of looking at the four corners of the complaint coupled with the language in the policy and it's not done for instance the course is in the underlying complaint the plane of nevertheless that he was an employee o cursory reading of the complaint the first thing you do when you're analyzing whether a duty to defend exists is analyze of the nature of the complaint the nature of the underlying complaint itself was for employment discrimination the a orthopedic surgeon practice group both those practice groups do stuff at this hospital wesley yes and you're saying that isin there was also an employee of the orthopedic practice group he was a lone and least arrangement like this where where he has his own history geology practice group which seems to be his employer but usually he's also an employee of the orthopedic group yes he was on loan they loan or lease in it's at the duty to feel stage which is all we were required to do right now is show that the allegations in a complaint alleges that he was not an independent contractor he was a employee owned loan now i understand of cour question eventually it may have been determined to discovery through depositions ultimately he may or may have been decided that he was an internet company contractor but when you when you're analyzing the case at this stage when you you don't leave a doctor out there suit under a policy that has two requirements and it's one that  it covers claims for wrongful employment practices made by an employee the language of the policy states their employee is one who is loaned or leased from under the company now in the language of in the language of the court's ruling he indicated that he felt like these two entities out just in a certain was just simply working together you not simply working together if you're from one company and he's from another company and you are assigned from your company to work under his supervision which is what we lived in the complaint on paragraph sixteen of the complaint we are legit all material times dr isom was assigned by wes and again at this stage all of these allegations are to be taken as truth even if later on they are proven to be false in determining whether it is the duty to defend that attack if you have to take them all of this being true you have to view them in friends who's a criminal defense lawyer so there he was and on what i said rick but there he was in a situation where he's facing a jury verdict we got a trial date the judge ordered us to mediate he has no lawyers he has no in light of the insurance policy and provide a defense the judge in his ruling indicated that he saw the fact that there was no coverage will come which is a proof proof intensive  a proof intensive thing if you want to determine coverage you do that after you have discovery at you have in a rotter answers if you have litigation and if this ultimately determined that there is no coverage that completely irrelevant as a separate issue from the duty to the thing which attaches when you when the complaint is tendered but if the complaint shows no basis for believing he's an employee then you can decide it then what what about your clients  has to be made based on economic factors who's in control what you consider to the show under the bar serve a doctor who talks about you see a client didn't know the law when he said that i am saying he didn't know the law he answered the question he was never allowed he wasn't allowed to work at this stage you take the allegation that we made in the complaint even if they proved to be false they have to be accepted as true and you know i can play willis that he was a son and this clearly is  like me all of your past present future or full time employees including seasonal in tipperary employees and employees least or loaned to you  banahan and michael moore on behalf of valley forge in transportation good morning there's been no argument about the disqualification issue here and i don't know if i need to address that if the court  defend is triggered when reasonably plausible allegations are covered by the terms of the policy and they are those those reasonably plausible allegations or in the comp complaint in this true statement dr isom and that was that he was a contract employee of wesley medical center he had a contract with them he had no contract with bayless he had no employment status with bailiffs i'll say to you judge cost in answer to one of your questions that there's absolutely a dearth of proof in this case that there was ever any compensation or control exercised by the orthopedic group over an expect that in the normal course of things this e p l or employment practices liability coverage for coverage claims for wrongful employment practices brought by an employee it specifically and that you know dr oz was merely on staff which court i thinks already noted that the the during the investigation of these claims there were two separate claim submitted all that's been talked about is this employment practices there was also a c g l question about whether or not there was a slander claim that was made i think that's been well addressed in the braves and i won't bother you with that unless you have specific questions about it but b indicated his brace at one point even said should we defend this under reservation of rights they looked at that they should look at that they have a duty to investigate they have a duty to make that an appropriate coverage claim they they call the employer he was not an employee he was a contractor i think that issue is is fairly well established in this case the this borrowed servant dr and i'd like to talk about that just a moment only because i didn't find that mentioned one time in any issue race before judge terry and the district court entitled to know what your client is so if the claim was that he was a borrowed or long servant someone should have a contractor who was a broker that by definition when those people were working they were alone servants they were always alone servants there's absolutely nothing in the proof that was established in this case either from the time we saw the compliant throughout this litigation that would give us a scintilla of evidence that dr isom was anything other than an independent contractor that wesley and doctors who have their particular function are malpractise ward perhaps and work for a government body but judge king typical practice is just what we say here you have people that are members of the staff they're both independent they're independent of each other and the they provide anesthesia services which he or she knows how to do in the orthopedic surgeon is hopefully addressing an orthopedic issue on a good day and not in anesthesia services so you know i just don't think anything's been developed in fact there's even a mississippi not sure what my colleague said well my problem is that he is raising something on rebuttal that now the other side is not going to be able to respond to that he didn't raise in his original argument but you know what a lesser of the sir those are arguments for this morning