287.150 or any of its six subsections confers on an employer or its workers’ compensation insurance carrier the unconditional right to intervene in an injured employee’s negligence suit against third parties “to protect and enforce [a] statutory workers’ compensation lien,” as alleged in SVC’s motion. Moreover, our independent review of the entire statute confirms that nowhere does it confer such an unconditional right of intervention. Since “[t]he burden of proof in an intervention action [under Rule 52.12(a)] lies with the proposed intervenor,” In re Estate of Potashnick, 841 S.W.2d 714, 719 (Mo.App. E.D.1992), the trial court properly overruled SVC’s motion to intervene on the basis of Rule 52.12(a)(1). See Flippin v. Coleman Trucking, Inc., 18 S.W.3d 17, 20 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (<HOLDING>); Ruth L. v. State, 830 S.W.2d 528, 530
holding that an appeal from a denial of a motion to intervene as a matter of right is allowed under rule 2a2 holding that a wouldbe intervenor was not entitled to intervene on the basis of rule 5212a1 where she failed to show that any missouri statute conferred upon her an unconditional right to intervene holding that a motion to intervene was permitted even though the intervenor filed her motion eighteen days before trial where the intervenor herself could have brought an independent action to seek the same relief as she was within the twoyear statute of limitations commencing on the date of her automobile accident holding that rule 5212a1 was inapplicable because the wouldbe intervenor failed to show that any missouri statute unconditionally authorized it to intervene as a matter of right holding that a partys status as an intervenor at trial was insufficient alone to confer standing to appeal absent the defendants participation because the intervenor failed independently to satisfy the requirements of article iii