contribution against the district for monies that they receive from settling with two others should two or three other insurers we have a span of insurance coverage for thirty years from i think seventy one thousand dollars there were three private insurance carriers for the last segment it was the only school district agency when the school district was sued it tender to all of the insurance carriers for their individual policies there were three and they said doesn't this case really turned on whether or not the district had a right to the selector to tender yes and what do you have to say why they don't the reason they do in each of those cases it was concurred policies so you're saying that that that was a necessary condition for the ruling in those cases that had it not been concurrent policies the ruling in those cases would have been different i think you have to look at each individual in each individual case big brother generally speaking yes he has the only case in point two which is this richard marker case out of the second concurrent a number of concurrent policies doesn't make sense that the the primary insured only needs one policy to protect himself or itself against terrorists doesn't need a multiple concurrent policy he could concur policy when there's a party such as a general contractor who has a variety of subcontractors that he insists that he named as an additional insured under their policy so you have concurrent policies in that situation so i i don't see where those cases really apply in consecutive policy or or why the loop why those cases that you just tried to distinguish would not apply in consecutive cases where consecutive policies we're it's difficult if not impossible if we were going to break who was responsible for what it would look at the number of years that the policy holder she's going each insurance company have time on the wrist is the term they use maybe you could explain it would be something that would span a period of time so for example it's it's just like every other environmental problem isn't it i mean it it's like the  lungs in coal mine is you never know when it started this as does so so we understand the nature of that of that problem but the the the question i have is why you're seeing the beast looking for a rule that says that when you have consecutive policies inequity there should be a sharing of maybe even before that whether we have established such a rule and i don't know that we can i am not sure that we have it seems like a good rule but i'm not sure that the courts are in a position to establish such a rule right or if you look  reasoning for allowing sure to do it targeted tender the courts have said because they don't necessarily want to turn to pick their policy where their rates may go up they don't want to turn to a policy where they would have an accent of loss history or their fear of having their policies canceled so they have the opportunity to then to target another shirt for those reasons those still in applying the consecutive policy situation m i agree with those are some of the reasons but i don't think they are exclusive really the reason is because when you have a general contractor and you have a sub contract with multiple sub contractors sometimes liability can lie all over the place and including the general contractor and so it's not a question of you know which policy really covers it's a question of the person that's paying the cost should decide which policy they're going to target well what we have here to which is and they have a very every one of those cases talked about in church right forego making a claim against those other policies and target the one policy it was here the district did not forego anything it targeted them settled with them for the amount of money that they thought  but i have not seen a case where the district in this case of the shirt has read the benefit of settling and then the selected in exchange if you look at that contract  suggested that the settlement here in the amount of some six hundred sixty thousand is that practically what it was with the three yes it was big the actual expenses and cost that the district it up paying for they suggest were nine million and another couple of them well they say they say that this amount that they're not getting it up recovery that they have  school that did not deal with defense costs because of litigation and that's the coverage we're talking about here well let me let me ask you is that the coverage we're talking about with regards to the private carriers i understand that's the coverage we're talking about with highest the n e a but is that the coverage is that really the coverage that we're talking about with the private carriers yes because most of the i mean there was no remediation coverage provide you know as a matter of fact  the counterclaim that was filed but the district count one judge arnold specifically found that there was no coverage for the mediation and so that that issue was not in play now that she ruled later  costs and then they can apply the set up where you don't do it you do it at your own risk and so they're saying we're trying to manipulate how those monies were spent you know enough they didn't allocate it therefore all of that could be viewed as defense costs and that works in our favor in terms of seeking settle for forever so how how would that work would we remained good to the circuit court to allow the division between remediation and defense of at six hundred sixty dollars six hundred  the work you have to look at a situation where all of the policies are current or provided the same coverage for the same person same here and in that case if you well know they d selected one of the so and then idea behind it was you have to have everyone on the same level feel and then you can pick and choose but well let me when you pick up that you yes because we are an intermediate court do you believe that we could rule in the fashion that you're asking us to rule without creating a conflict with the gmo i absolutely do  uses the word concurrent policies and it does not have i said you know weak i don't know that we should necessarily rely on this thing wishy supreme court cases because we might rely on distinguishing our fellow appellate court decisions but to say that well this decision by the supreme court doesn't really control our decision here seems you know that we're not giving sufficient guidance or we're not giving on the other policies only provided defense expenses and or if they were identical they were on all fours with the policy that i wouldn't the district at that point have a right to tender their costs to tender the defense to them and then the tender if they're willing to come up with remediation contributions up the answer suffered a los and we have incurred costs basically one thing that i didn't hear very much out in mystery argument was the fact that we did spend two point one million dollars after requests at the suggestion of defense cals this was a  insured deactivated the tender in the second sure is that look i'm being prejudiced here i'm being forced to bear the entire load it made me made basically the same argument that i have gays making here and in the second district and we took a look at this because obviously the carriers when they came to me and said we really want to sell we what you can in context what happened is we presented all the carriers that except at the tender professor some did not some said no go away some said go away but negotiate and we presented the carriers that accepted the defense with a complete some of the bills for what we did in the investigative world and some people right there let me let me ask you this so to the extent that you receive settlements from these insurance companies you receive settlements or to cover what they were allocated and they were they could open i dated unallocated suggests that you had brought coverage and if you broke two other think it and the question is whether it could be unallocated to expert witness is that what you're saying versus attorneys or what do you know by on th them because the regional superintendent schools literally said his deposition i closed the school so we were spotted by ever meet we think that that's a contested issue obviously the other carriers disagreed we had back and forth so when i say that the settlements were an alkie and they released the other carriers all forward mediation some of them specifically segregation laws that's what they that's how they were allocated they release those carriers for the potential responsibility for the nine million remediation ring after the insured gets a settlement from the insurance company that was initially tendered to i think this i think this was what the the proud court said that there is no case out there that says that you have  i think since the general policy is specially and complicated environmental insurance cases like this bites settling and deactivate we had a we had a lot of costs that we resolved b when you have concurrent policies i think the street brought up one reason is to prevent future premium hikes and here it seems to me eve that the district candy tender after being staffed or settling with these others sure is companies without any kind of impact on the district whatsoever the district isn't going to suffer any allege that students were there for making a six to two thousand one month since file suffered from mold infested and when the carriers looked at those that were farthest from the present like nine hundred seventy one you know would you constructed in the course of for construction or fall to construction work or failure to seal properly whatever the reason if there's a connection between nine hundred seventy one and the building of the school and the mold that was discovered two thousand five or whenever it was then why should they be like why should they be in a different position than those later unfortunately the coverage lawyer i have not had to you know delve into it that greatly and when the when the other when the carrier said look we were only on the wrist for a couple years in the early seventy's we i don't think they can prove a class action going this far here's ten think judge garcia asked that question the party that paid the premiums over those thirty years should be the party that gets to decide it's really going to free market then the party should get to decide how it wants to reap the benefits of what but is there any difference between a tender when you have multiple policies applying for the same period of time with different insurance insurers rather as opposed to a situation where you have a tender of that's kind of unusual and i've not seen a cure environmental case like this one that i have which is by example in the one that we based our decision on in the activating the tender was speaking versus richard parker that was not an environmental case i've not seen a targeted certainly suggest that as much but when you're in a court of equity the rules apply and maybe different rules should apply or quarterback wh he looks at what's the fear thing to do and not necessarily simply what is your free market right to do and maybe there should be policies that say when you have a variety of insurance company when you want to tender your policy your defense to the company that you know has the part that has the last responsibility and probably the most figures responsibility your current ensure that the rules should require more than what they would require in a in another context like address that in in to wait for first off i think that there they prosecuted everything to the end and they have incurred these expenses and then they negotiated with the other surance companies would it be fair to say that  briefly like to address the cross appeal which is the reimbursement i don't think that i don't think the cross appeal is really a key part let me let me ask your package team sort of what what about the street and said that her we would in fact be going against the ruling to jim exley not because the rule in can jima and the court simply said we decline to extend the targeted tender doctrine to require one insurer tickly exhaust its primary in excess coverage that was before all primary insurance available to the insured has been exhausted we don't have any excess policies here we've got thirty years of second of primary coverage and  best case that you rely on for affirming is other than that you mentioned people in the converses he converses richard market or that the targeted tendered doesn't violate the other insurance clause john byrne's versus indiana but maybe i should've phrase it this way what do you think which case you cite that is the closest to the situation we have here because  that's their words and those are the words that that supreme court also said in john burns so we have situation here where it's what we do with market because if in the first two lines of the market decision health the policies must be concurrent can apply and secondly and therefore you can apply it and second then we don't lose our equable right to share those costs which is typical in most environmental