Once again, I found myself at the podium facing 5 black robed justices of the state's Supreme Court, who sat in their high backed chairs, their stoic features wearing that usual hard-to-read expression.
I needed to greet them before launching into my prepared speech, but I did not remember their names.
Truth be told, I haven't met anyone who's worse than me in terms of remembering people's names. My co-workers greet each other in the morning by saying, "Good Morning, (person’s name)". I always just say "Good Morning". My greetings come out truncated because I, so often, just don't remember my co-workers' names.
Fortunately, I did not have to greet the justices by their names. I just started by saying:"Good Morning your honors! My name is ….” You see, I only had to remember my own name there, which, I’m happy to report, is something I’ve always been able to manage.
The case isn't terribly complicated. The state reimburses insurance companies who pay into a special fund for certain benefits they pay to their insureds. The appellant in this case, a town, wants to be reimbursed by the state, too, but towns do not pay into that special fund.
So I argued on behalf of the state to the court: “The function of the state, through the special fund, is no different from that of insurance companies who cover the risks of their insureds in exchange for payment of premiums. Here, the payment by the insurance companies into the special fund is like premium. The town is not entitled to the claimed reimbursements because it does not pay premium.”
It all sounds very plausible, doesn't it? The problem is that not too long before, I had stood before this same court and argued in a different case that the state was not an insurer.
In that other case, the state transfers a case to an insurance company. The defendant in the case claims, however, that it, by law, does not pay insurance companies. The insurance company then returns the case to the state so the state can get paid by that defendant. The defendant claims that the state itself is also an insurance company.
I had won that case and got the defendant to pay the state by arguing, successfully, that the state was not an insurance company. Here in this case, I seemed to be arguing the opposite that the state was functioning like an insurance company.
I was a little worried that one of the justices might stop me and remind me of my argument in that previous case, which would call for a lengthy explanation on my part. All justices are not experts in that specific realm of law and long explanations may be confusing to them. So I quickly followed my main argument with the finishing comment: “We are a state. Unlike Uncle Sam, we don’t have a money-printing machine. If parties like the town, who do not pay into the special fund, also get reimbursed by the state, the state would go bankrupt.”
It was then the appellant's turn for rebuttal. Before he could utter a word, though, one of the justices asked him: “Is it true you do not pay into the fund?” Then and there, I knew I had won.
So, the state is not an insurance company. Nevertheless, it can function like an insurance company. You see the difference? :)