Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): appellant’s interpretation of the policy. Section B states that appellees will pay, when due, the benefits required. Section C gives appellees the right to investigate and settle all claims, proceedings, or suits. The actions taken by appellees pursuant to section C will determine if appellees are required to pay the benefits discussed in section B. If appellees exercise their rights under the policy in section C to settle a claim, then payment will be required of appellees under section B. There is .no requirement in the policy that appellees obtain the consent of appellant when settling a claim or investigating the merits of a claim, and we are not permitted to write such a clause into the policy. Dear v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 947 S.W.2d 908, 913-14 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Apex Towing Co. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth (B) holding that thirdparty indemnity claims are not premature (C) holding that when policy gives absolute right to settle thirdparty claims courts are not permitted to engraft any consent requirement onto the policy (D) holding that injured employee has right to settle with thirdparty tortfeasor claims not covered by minnesota workers compensation act (E) holding insured relinquished right to sue general liability insurer for breach of contract relative to insurers allegedly improper handling and payment of thirdparty claim by purchasing policy which gave insurer right to settle
Output (English): holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth