With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". {¶ 24} Instead, Fishel merely did not dispute Richards’s claim. That is, it passively conceded what it obviously deemed were well-established facts — “that the above injured worker is permanently and totally disabled due to the allowed conditions” — in signing the 2007 agreement. Passive acquiescence was not a voluntary settlement and did not demand the written consent of Fishel’s insurer. Consider the difference between an admission of facts in a candid answer to an ordinary civil lawsuit, and a settlement of that lawsuit. An answer conceding key facts may inevitably lead to an adverse determination of the case, but that is not a settlement. There is a subtle but genuine difference. See also Travelers Property Cas. Co. v. ConocoPhillips Co. (C.A.9, 2008), 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 25} Republic Western’s policy did not

A: holding that where the policy includes indemnification coverage to the corporation proceeds are not property of the estate where there is no proof of payments by corporation of payments
B: recognizing that payments to secured creditors are only required in equal monthly amounts if property to be distributed  is in the form of periodic payments
C: holding that an insured did not violate a similar voluntary payments clause merely by waiving a statutory credit for workers compensation payments such a clause pertains only to the insured voluntarily making payments or incurring expenses and not to a nonmonetary requirement simply to refrain from doing something
D: holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments
C.