The Arizona Supreme Court`s decision in H.B.H. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is instructive and compelling for an insurer`s ability to intervene.  In H.B.H., the third party and the insured have entered into a « Damron » agreement comparable to a Bashor/Nunn agreement.  In the agreement, the third party agreed to limit the personal liability of the insured and to recover from the insurer the remainder of a judgment in the underlying litigation.  Before being heard on the damages, the insurer entered under Arizona`s Civil Procedure Code 24 (a), which was denied.  The Arizona Supreme Court has reviewed several Arizona Court decisions that allowed insurers to intervene, including Anderson v. Martinez, to challenge the opportunity for compensation.  The Tribunal found that the best time for the insurer to intervene in the insurer`s intervention during the underlying litigation was the most appropriate time for litigation, given that a hearing on Dener was in favour of the applicant under the Damron agreement and the insurer had the right to question the relevance of the agreement.  Miller-Shugart Agreement (Minnesota) – This legal term comes from Miller v.
Shugart, 316 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1982) and contains situations in which policyholders enter into a transaction to avoid liability if an insurer provides a defence under a legal requirement. A Miller-Shugart contract is a transaction in which an insured accepts a judgment in favour of the applicant on the condition that the plaintiff renders the judgment only on the income of the insured`s insurance policy and does not seek to recover it against the insured in person. The courts have enforced such agreements and have established that policyholders have the right to protect themselves from rights and that policyholders have the right to settle their accounts without the insurer`s consent if they are defended subject to the requirement. The term « Bashor agreement » has since been used « to describe agreements in which the insured formally cedes his rights against the insurer to the [victim] in exchange for a federation not to execute the insured`s wealth. » Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Ross, 180 P.3d 427, 431 (Colo.2008) (referring to Pham v. State Farm Mut. Car. In the.
Co., 70 P.3d 567, 570 (Colo.App.2003); Pike v. Am. States Preferred Ins. Co., 55 P.3d 212, 213 (Colo.App.2002); And Rodriguez v. Safeco Ins. Co., 821 p.2d 849 (Colo.App.1991)). This understanding continued, although there was no such mission in Bashor. Tribunal upholds Nunn`s agreement and rejects the request for intervention The Colorado Supreme Court first expressly authorized agreements between policyholders and third parties in Northland Insurance Co. v. Bashor.  In Bashor, a third party has taken an insured to court and has obtained a judgment that exceeds the insured`s liability limits.  Subsequently, the insured and the third party executed an agreement in which the insured agreed: (1) to pay part of the judgment; (2) assert the remainder against the insurer by means of a bad faith claim for breach of the duty to be the subject of litigation; and (3) to pay the third party any judgment obtained in the course of the bad faith proceedings.
 In return, the third party agreed not to recover the judgment against the insured.  After the insurer challenged the agreement of the insured and the desdritts, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on the validity of the agreement.  Thus, the Bashor decision allows an insured person and a third party to enter into, according to the procedure, an agreement comprising a contract that is not led to a judgment determined by a neutral fact-seeker. These cases illustrate the confirmation by the Colorado Supreme Court of the validity of such agreements between policyholders and third parties, to the detriment of insurers. These agreements, which may lead to judgments tried without a neutral fact-finder deciding the amount of damages or judgments, may be used as evidence in subsequent bad faith proceedings against the insurer.