In Humbach v. Goldstein (229 A.D.2d 64 [2d Dept 1997]), the insurer moved to intervene as a coplaintiff in its insured's personal injury action. The insurer had paid, on behalf of the plaintiff insured, $ 83,000 in medical expense costs. The insurer, in seeking to intervene, advanced a subrogation right as against "responsible third parties" and a contractual "right of reimbursement" from the insured to the extent the insured received moneys "through a third party settlement or satisfied judgment . . . specifically identified as amounts paid for health care services or benefits." (Humbach, supra, at 65-66) The Humbach court undertook a careful permissive intervention analysis pursuant to CPLR 1003 as that was the procedural posture in which the case arose. In this regard, the Humbach court was concerned that the intervention of various medical providers could create an adversarial posture between carriers and plaintiffs, and could unduly delay the determination of such actions. Moreover, the Humbach court raised the specter of intervention by all types of insurance carriers (no-fault, disability, etc.) together with intervention and cross claims by unpaid providers seeking reimbursement from the carriers for services provided to the plaintiff insured. According to the Humbach court, such unrestrained intervention would transform simple personal injury actions into "complicated, unmanageable, multiparty litigation" (Humbach, 229 A.D.2d at 68). Concern for confusion and prejudicing the plaintiff's case by submitting multiple collateral source and reimbursement issues to the jury was also present in the Humbach decision (Humbach, supra, at 68). Lastly, the Humbach court found that since the insurer could only seek reimbursement from third-party settlement payments "specifically identified" as payment for health care services, in the absence of a settlement, the insurer's causes of action were "asserted prematurely." (Humbach, supra, at 68.) The Humbach court denied the insurer's motion for permissive intervention under CPLR 1003 while noting that the plaintiff had acknowledged that the insurer had a lien on any payments from third parties which were specifically identified as amounts paid for health care services or benefits attributable to the plaintiff's injuries in the accident. According to the Humbach court, the insurer "could protect any rights it might have by seeking legal redress at that juncture." (Humbach, supra, at 69.) The Second Department upheld the trial court's decision denying intervention to an insurer at a preverdict stage. The contract causes of action were held to be premature insofar as the policy's language permitted the insurer to recover the reasonable value of the insured's care or sickness upon the insured's receipt of payment by virtue of third-party settlements or satisfied judgments which were identified "as amounts paid for health care services or benefits and only to the extent of the care provided for such injury or sickness" (at 66).