{¶ 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
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 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 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 holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments