With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Wis. 2d at 270-71. 15 Petta, 278 Wis. 2d 251, ¶ 29. 16 Schulte, 176 Wis. 2d at 637; Petta, 278 Wis. 2d 251, ¶ 29. 17 Schulte, 176 Wis. 2d at 637; Petta, 278 Wis. 2d 251, ¶ 29. When the settling parties do not ask the circuit court to determine whether the injured party has been made whole, thus preventing the circuit court from making a finding on the issue, the subrogated insurer's right of subrogation is not extinguished. See Mut. Serv. Cas. Co. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 140 Wis. 2d 555, 563-64, 410 N.W.2d 582 (1987) (stating that the made whole doctrine is not "applicable in an action brought by a subrogated, insurer against the tortfeasor or the tortfeasor's insurer where the subrogated insurer's insured has previously settled with the. tortfeasor."); Schulte, 176 Wis. 2d 635-36 (<HOLDING>). 18 Garrity, 77 Wis. 2d at 542. 19 See

A: holding that the rule stated in mutual service does not apply when the settling parties request a rimes hearing the subrogated insurer has an opportunity to participate in the hearing and the circuit court determines that the injured party has not been made whole
B: holding that a hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal is not required if the parties are given an opportunity to respond on the record
C: holding that once a trial court has set a date for a summaryjudgment hearing the court must allow the nonmoving party an opportunity to be heard
D: holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing
A.