trial court’s choice-of-law determination on appeal, as “its insured adequately represented Lumber-mens’ interests”- until that point. Id. The supreme court agreed with Lumbermens and held that it was entitled to invoke the virtual-representation doctrine to raise on appeal the choice-of-law issue its insured abandoned in order to settle uninsured claims in another suit. Id. at 729. Here, however, BJVSD has not shown that it is an insurer or other party having a duty to pay all or part of the judgment. Furthermore, BJVSD has made no showing that Triton 88 or Triton 2000, as the actual entities bound under the judgment, are unable to adequately represent their own interests and thus, indirectly, those of their limited partner or members. See also City of San Benito, 109 S.W.3d at 755 (<HOLDING>); Motor Vehicle Bd. of Tex. v. El Paso Indep.
holding that unnamed class members who had contested fairness of proposed settlement and attempted to opt out of class action were entitled to appeal settlement under virtualrepresentation doctrine holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action holding that unnamed class members who object in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing may appeal without first intervening holding that an unnamed plaintiff that did not intervene nonetheless had standing to appeal a class action settlement