THE REFEREE: Let me just ask a few questions. I don't know if you got my correspondence that sent the most recent rating bureau letters. Does everybody have those?

MR. TRABEK: Is that the one for February 24?

THE REFEREE: This is March 6.

MR. TRABEK: No. I don't have that.

THE REFEREE: It indicates that Barker’s Roadside Diner was insured by Twin Cities Fire from 10/22/90 to 1/6/91. These have been sent out, but you probably don't have them. It also indicates that Past Tymes Tavern had coverage from 10/22/90 to 1/6/91 with USF&G. However, then I got a letter dated March 9 from Attorney Abramson indicating that General Accident Insurance provided coverage from 10/22/90 to 1/6/91; so I'm a little confused about that, unless GAI is just an adjusting company handling it. What did you want to say?

MS. HUNTER: General Accident Insurance Company, when I spoke with them

they indicated that they did, in fact, provide coverage during that period of time, but they indicated they provided the coverage for an extended period of time, a number of years.

THE REFEREE: I wonder why the ratings bureau is telling me Twin Cities then.

MS. HUNTER: I really cannot tell you that one at all.

THE REFEREE: Well, I don't know what to say. If you're willing to provide coverage and you're the carrier, fine. But my question is I have to formalize my record. Who has been joined? Let me ask it this way: Does anybody intend to join anybody?

MR. BENSON: I don't know the two people. Which is Barker’s, and which is Past Tymes?

THE REFEREE: I'm talking about joining insurance carriers. We don't have them in the record right now. How are we going to get these carriers in the record?

MR. TRABEK: Can you send a corrected notice? Would that solve it?

THE REFEREE: Well, since there is a dispute about who they are, I'm reluctant to do that. I'd rather see the parties bring them in with a joinder petition.

If you feel it is another insurance company responsible or provided coverage based on these rating bureau letters or what Counsel has said, then you ought to file joinders because I'm reluctant to start naming people arbitrarily. Since there is a dispute about it, that would be the best way to do it.

MR. BENSON: I will file. I'll be more than happy to file adding insurance carriers to the previously filed joinder.

THE REFEREE: Attorney Hunter, if you are willing to enter an appearance for General Accident, then that will make things simpler.

MS. HUNTER: The other thing is I do want to determine, the Twin Cities Insurance Company, where they come in at. I'm also a little confused. If you also

received something from the rating bureau that indicated Twin Cities Insurance provided coverage at that period of time, I'm wondering whether -- I don't know what the situation really is.

THE REFEREE: I understand that. I'm confused now. How are you in this case, Mrs. Hunter, and how is GAI in this?

MR. BENSON: I filed a joinder.

MS. HUNTER: There was a notice that we received at that time for Barker’s Roadside Diner Restaurant.

THE REFEREE: Were you joined?

MS. HUNTER: Yes, we were.

THE REFEREE: So you are in the case already.

MS. HUNTER: Right.

THE REFEREE: If you think that the ratings bureau letters are accurate, let the other defendants figure it out at that point, whether they belong in the case or not.

MS. HUNTER: I'm sorry.

THE REFEREE: My comment was addressed to Mr. Benson. I said if he wants to join the other carriers, he can do that; and then you can decide with the other carriers whether you are in or out. That will be between you people.

MR. BENSON: Right now, I understand that Barker’s has been joined. Past Tymes has been joined, and General Accident is a party to this already.

MR. TRABEK: Cindy, are you already in this for General Accident? I don't see an insurance company that you would be associated with.

MS. HUNTER: We received notice. Let me put it to you this way. We received notice from the employer essentially that they were being joined in the matter, and that's the reason we appeared. We had not actually received an actual notice of being joined in it.

THE REFEREE: Did you file an answer?

MS. HUNTER: I believe an answer has been filed, yes.

THE REFEREE: Then, you're in it. If you filed an answer, you're a party, correct?

MS. HUNTER: Well, that's if we've been joined. The question is I don't know whether we have been actually joined in light of the fact that we have not received -- we've only received stuff from the employer. I don't know that General Accident itself has actually been joined as of this date.

THE REFEREE: Do you want them in, Mr. Benson?

MR. BENSON: I'll take all the steps to make sure that all the parties that I want in are in even if it means a little bit of repetition.

MR. TRABEK: Your answer, says, "Barker’s Roadside Diner Restaurant, by and through its insurance carrier, General Accident Insurance, hereby files the following answer to the petition for joinder."

MS. HUNTER: Right.

THE REFEREE: Mr. Benson indicated that, if an insurance company isn't

in the record and he wants it in, he is going to bring it in. I think we know who it conceivably could be based on the ratings bureau letters.

I really don't understand what is so confusing. Either you offered coverage, or you didn't. If you did, you have to know that. I don't know why we are going through all these machinations. Sooner or later, I'm going to know who the insurance companies are.

MS. HUNTER: As far as what General Accident is saying, they are saying, yes, they did provide coverage. But the rating bureau, evidently they have it listed as Twin City; and I'm not sure where Twin Cities comes into this at this point.

THE REFEREE: You will get copies of the ratings bureau. You should have them today. Mr. Trabek, since you generated this phone call, I think you're the one who is concerned about this.

MR. TRABEK: That is correct.

THE REFEREE: Once Mr. Benson files these additional joinders, we can move this matter to some kind of disposition, but the holdup was we didn't know who the carriers were. Does this satisfy whatever you wanted to know?

MR. TRABEK: I'm not sure. I don't know if we can address it then at this point if we don't have all the proper carriers because then I need to know if those carriers are going to be entitled to have an IME. No. 2, are they going to want an IME? No. 3, are we going to have to redepose the medical physicians that were already taken?

THE REFEREE: Some carriers aren't going to be in it because they are not appropriate carriers. For whatever reason they are being named, eventually they will be out of it because we have more carriers than we should, unless they had double or triple coverage.

I just want to get the correct defendants in the record. Once you've done that, I'll schedule a hearing; and at some point the correct insurance companies can let you know whether they intend to have an exam. Then if you want to object, you can do that. I'm just trying to get the right parties. We can't do anything until we have that done. If you want to move the thing along by staying in touch with these various defendants and seeing what their positions are with respect to coverage and exams and so on and so forth, that will help matters.

MR. TRABEK: Dan, you are out of it completely now, right?

MR. MASTERS: That is the next issue we would like to resolve. No matter what date anybody got correspondence from the ratings bureau, State Fund's name does not appear either for Past Tymes or for Barker’s. I have a letter from Dave and from you, Jerry, and I spoke to George; and everybody tells me that they don't have a problem with State Fund being dismissed and myself and State Fund being removed from the record.

THE REFEREE: Except that we have other potential carriers that might object; so I'm not letting you out. I'm not generating the confusion here. I'm not going to let anybody out until everybody is in and everybody has an opportunity to object or to agree.

MR. MASTERS: I appreciate Counsel's intentions then. Jerry, I will tell you I will not ask for an IME.

MR. TRABEK: Okay, Dan.

THE REFEREE: Before this matter gets listed for a hearing, we'll have this straightened out.

MR. TRABEK: The only real insurance company who hasn't at least in some semblance made an appearance in this case is USF&G.

THE REFEREE: And Twin Cities.

MR. TRABEK: Twin Cities could be another carrier. Okay.

THE REFEREE: Okay.

MR. TRABEK: All right.

THE REFEREE: Thank you all very much.

(At this time the hearing in the above-captioned matter was concluded.)

Goofy

Lower Keys Finger Drill