In Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Rice , Muskingum App. No. CT2001-0017, 2001 Ohio 1566, 2001 Ohio App, appellant was driving a friend's car when she was struck by a tortfeasor. Appellant submitted a claim to her friend's insurer, Nationwide, for medical expenses. Nationwide paid appellant $ 50,000.00. Appellant also submitted a claim to the tortfeasor's insurer, who paid appellant $ 100,000.00. Nationwide requested reimbursement from appellant for the medical payments monies Nationwide had paid her, and when she refused to reimburse Nationwide, it filed an action to pursue its subrogation claim against appellant. In affirming the trial court's judgment for Nationwide, the Court stated: "'A third party beneficiary is one for whose benefit a promise has been made in a contract but who is not a party to the contract.' Chitlik v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1973), 34 Ohio App. 2d 193, 196, 299 N.E.2d 295. 'The third party need not be named in the contract, as long as she is contemplated by the parties to the contract and sufficiently identified.' Id. Moreover, the 'promisee must intend that a third party benefit from the contract in order for that third party to have enforceable rights under the contract.' Laverick v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. Of Akron (1988), 43 Ohio App. 3d 201, 204, 540 N.E.2d 305. A third party beneficiary is free to accept or reject the benefits of the contract; however, by accepting the benefits of the contract, the third party beneficiary also assumes the attendant burdens. Fawn v. Heritage Mut. Inc. Co. (June 30, 1997), Franklin App. No 96APE12-1678, unreported, 1997 Ohio App, (holding that the 'arbitration provision of an insurance policy between a named insured and insurer can be enforced against a third-party who seeks underinsurance benefits under the policy'.) The contract does not have to name the third-party beneficiary, as long as 'the third person is in the contemplation of the parties.' Hines v. Amole (1982), 4 Ohio App. 3d 263, 268, 4 Ohio B. 480, 448 N.E.2d 473. An intended third-party beneficiary cannot receive a greater benefit than that provided for in the contract. Ohio Savings Bank v. V.H. Vokes Co. (1989), 54 Ohio App. 3d 68, 560 N.E.2d 1328." See, Rice, supra, 2001 Ohio App