submitted a proposed order along with the application. Bayouth and Hastings filed an objection, summarily stating that the proposed order “deprives them of due process,” “represents collusion between [Nautilus] and [ reasons. First, Ba-youth and Hastings said nothing about necessary parties when they objected to Nautilus’s proposed order for a declaratory judgment. See Hill v. Kansas Gas Serv. Co., 323 F.3d 858, 866 (10th Cir.2003) (stating that we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal). Second, to the extent that the insurance coverage issue between Nautilus and Banana Joe’s created an actual controversy between Nautilus and Bayouth and Hastings, see Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 274, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941) (<HOLDING>), that controversy was resolved by the
holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer holding that if the insured is only partially compensated by the insurer both the insurer and the insured are real partiesininterest holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured holding that if counsel retained by an insurer acts as an investigator and not as an attorney then the communications between the insured and insurer are not privileged