Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): identified a single case that has extended the policy-based duty of good faith and fair dealing to a person or entity besides the insurer. Nor have Plaintiffs offered any facts showing that they and Carmichael have a special relationship, not rooted in the policy, that would justify placing a duty on Carmichael. Cf. Natividad, 875 S.W.2d at 701 (Gamage, J. dissenting) (making an argument that an adjusting company to which an insurer delegated total control for claims handling had a special relationship with the insureds); William H. McGee & Co., Inc. v. Schick, 792 S.W.2d 513, 521 (Tex.Ct.App.1990), vacated on other grounds, 843 S.W.2d 473 (Tex.1992) (similarly recognizing a special relationship in specific circumstances); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258, 1272-74 (Colo.1985) (<HOLDING>). The Court recognizes that the rule is often 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing workers compensation insurance carrier owes employee duty of good faith and fair dealing in processing compensation claims (B) recognizing a breachofduty action by an employee against a workers compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer (C) 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 (D) holding that a rule requiring an excess carrier to drop down upon the insolvency of the primary carrier would impermissibly shift the risk of the primary carrier to the excess carrier and would require insurance companies to scrutinize one anothers financial stability before issuing secondary policies (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): recognizing workers compensation insurance carrier owes employee duty of good faith and fair dealing in processing compensation claims