Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Texas Fund has a legitimate interest in the case and it is in a much better position to protect that interest than any of the other parties. Texas Fund is entitled to intervene in the action to protect its legitimate interests. I foresee no harm or prejudice to any of the other parties by virtue of this intervention. Texas Fund’s intervention in the lawsuit would have little effect on how the case is actually prosecuted before a jury and affects no substantial interest of any of the other parties. Other courts, faced with identical or very similar circumstances, have held that an insurance carrier may intervene as of right in an action brought by the injured party against a third-party tortfeasor. See Smith Petroleum Service, Inc. v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 420 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>); Curtis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 754 F.2d 781, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding if a workers compensation carrier denies liability for medical expenses of its insured the nofault carrier is bound promptly to pay benefits concerning such expenses under its policy (B) recognizing workers compensation insurance carrier owes employee duty of good faith and fair dealing in processing compensation claims (C) holding that rule 6e did not extend the period in which a workers compensation carrier was required to pay a compensation award under the longshore and harbor workers compensation act where the act required payment within ten days of filing of the order as opposed to within ten days of service of notice provided for in the rule (D) recognizing a breachofduty action by an employee against a workers compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer (E) holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier
Output (English): holding that rule 6e did not extend the period in which a workers compensation carrier was required to pay a compensation award under the longshore and harbor workers compensation act where the act required payment within ten days of filing of the order as opposed to within ten days of service of notice provided for in the rule