With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the subdivision 6 distribution formula. Hodder, 426 N.W.2d at 838. II. Against this backdrop, we begin with Certified Question No. 1 and determine whether Conwed may seek payment from Union Carbide for compensation that may eventually be payable to employees who have settled workers’ compensation claims subject to reopening if their conditions should worsen. Union Carbide has acknowledged that “[t]o the extent there are any cases where Conwed has paid claimants but not fully settled the existing injury,” Conwed can recover future “payable” benefits for those workers if Conwed can provide sufficient evidence of the benefits it will have to pay. Based on our prior case law, we conclude that this is the correct result. See Aetna Life & Cas. v. Anderson, 310 N.W.2d 91, 95 (Minn.1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Wilken v. Int’l Harvester, 363

A: holding that a workers compensation insurer is entitled to share in a thirdparty settlement under the statutory formula unless it stipulates otherwise
B: holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future
C: holding that injured employee has right to settle with thirdparty tortfeasor claims not covered by minnesota workers compensation act
D: holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga  349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action
B.