In Fasso v. Doerr, (12 NY3d 80, 89-90, 903 NE2d 1167, 875 NYS2d 846 2009), the insured and the tortfeasor settled the tort action, and purportedly dismissed the insurer's equitable subrogation claim on the ground that the insured had not been made whole. The made-whole rule provides that if available sources of recovery are not sufficient to fully compensate the insured for the damages, then the insurer has no right to share in the proceeds. The Court of Appeals found that once a tortfeasor knows or should know of an insurer's right to subrogation, the insured and the tortfeasor cannot extinguish the insurer's claim without the insurer's consent. The Court commented on the insurer's intervention into the action, noting that "intervention can create an adversarial posture between a plaintiff/insured and its insurer . . . and it inevitably complicates settlement negotiations." (Id. at 89-90.) The Court encouraged the Legislature to reexamine the concept of permissible intervention as a means for an insurer to pursue its equitable subrogation rights.