OPINION
This is an appeal from a summary judgment denying a compensation insurance carrier its claim against a third-party tort-feasor and the third-party tortfeasor’s liability insurance carrier for reimbursement of benefits paid by it to the representative of the estate of the deceased worker. We reverse.
From the motiоns for summary judgment and supporting affidavits it appears that the following facts are undisputed. On February 2, 1979, Donny Ray Flores was killed in an automobile accident while in the сourse and scope of his employment for appellee C.F. Thomas Company, Inc. (Thomas). Appellants, Travelers Insurance Company and Travelеrs Indemnity Company of Rhode Island (Travelers), the compensation carrier for Thomas paid approximately $39,000.00 in death benefits to the representativе of the estate of Donny Ray Flores, Teresita Gonzales, his mother. Thereafter, on May 29, 1979, Teresita Gonzales brought a wrongful death suit in cause number 13,942, in the 25th District Court, against appellee Gordon Wayne Sei-del (Seidel), the driver of the other vehicle involved in the fatal collision, and Thomas. Travelers, the liability carrier for Thоmas, hired an attorney to represent Thomas. Appellee Texas Farmers Insurance Company (Farmers), the liability carrier for Seidel, hired an attorney tо represent Seidel. Sei-del and Thomas both answered the wrongful death suit and Seidel alleged a cross-action against Thomas. Travelers did not file a petitiоn in intervention in cause number 13,942 to recover the benefits paid Teresita Gonzales nor did its insured, Thomas, state a counterclaim therefor. Teresita Gonzalеs settled the wrongful death suit with Seidel and under the terms of the settlement received $7,000.00 from Seidel and $10,000.00 from Farmers. Subsequent to the settlement an agreed judgment was enterеd by the court reciting that Teresita Gonzales and Seidel take nothing in their respective actions against Thomas.
Travelers then brought this suit, cause number 81-CI-18524 in the 224th District Court, against Farmers, Seidel and Teresita Gonzales, for recovery of the $17,000.00 paid to Teresita Gonzales by Farmers and Seidel under the terms of the settlement in cause number 13,942. The court rendered a default judgment that Travelers recover $17,000.00 from Teresita Gonzales, who did not answer after proper service. Further, the trial cоurt denied Travelers motion for summary judgment and granted Farmers’ and Seidel’s motions for summary judgment and rendered judgment that Travelers take nothing from Farmers and Seidel. *280 It is from this judgment that Travelers appeals. 1
Travelers’ point of error number one is that the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment that Travelers take nothing from Farmers and Seidel.
In points of error two and four, Travelers lists еach ground upon which the court might have based its judgment and alleges that the court erred in rendering summary judgment because Farmers and Seidel failed to prove each ground as a matter of law; that those grounds not proved are namely: that Travelers’ claim is barred by res judicata, by the rule of compulsory counterclaims, or by the rule against splitting causes of action.
In its point of error number three Travelers alleges that the court erred in rendering summary judgment because “the accord shows conclusively (or at least presents a fact issue) that Texas Farmers Insurance Company and Gordon Wayne Seidel paid the entire prоceeds of the settlement to Teresita Gonzales with actual knowledge of Travelers’ subrogation interest and without taking any action to avoid liability therefоr.”
Farmers and Seidel argue that TEX. REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8307, § 6a (Vernon Supp.1986) affords a substantive remedy of subrogation to Travelers subject to the mandatory provisions of TEX.R.CIV.P. 97(a), and sincе Travelers failed to intervene in the wrongful death suit between Teresita Gonzales, the representative of the estate of the deceased worker, and Seidel, the third-party tortfeasor, and assert its right to reimbursement under section 6a Travelers lost its substantive right. In support of their contention they refer us to
Gautreaux v. City of Port Arthur,
Unlike Gautreaux, in the case before us, Travelers was never a party to the previous wrongful death suit between Tere-sita Gonzalеs and Seidel. Further unlike Gautreaux, the previous wrongful death suit was not tried on the merits; it was only after a settlement between Teresita Gonzales and Seidel had been reaсhed that a take nothing judgment was entered. We therefore cannot conclude that the take nothing judgment was a recovery by Tere-sita Gonzales limited only to the damages in excess of the compensation paid to her by Travelers.
We find Gautreaux to be instructive but we cannot conclude that it is dispositive of the issue raised by this аppeal. The issue as we see it is whether the payment by Seidel and Farmers to Teresita Gonzales in settlement of her claim against them, all with the full knowledge of Travelers’ right of subrogation, rendered them liable as a matter of law to Travelers for the sum of $17,000.00 despite Travelers’ failure to intervene and assert its rights. In the cаse before us, it is undisputed that the settlement between Teresita Gonzales and Seidel was made with full knowledge of Travelers’ right to subrogation and without the express consent, participation or approval of Travelers.
We are of the opinion that it is immaterial that an attorney hired by Travelers, under its obligations as the liability carrier for the employer, was cognizant of
*281
the settlement and approved the judgment. We are of the further opinion that it is immaterial whether Travelers intervened in the wrongful death action by Teresita Gonzales against Seidel. Section 6a does not speak of intervention when it discusses a carrier’s right to reimbursement. It is only as a matter of judicial economy that courts permit the carrier to intervene in the suit between the employee or his representative against the third party tortfeasor; section 6a is not intended to hinge on whether or not a party intervenes.
Rockwood Insurance Co. v. Williamson,
While the cause of action against Seidel belonged to the estate of the deceased émployee, it owned it subject to Travelers’ right to reimbursement for compensation paid.
See Independent Eastern Torpedo Co. v. Herrington,
The judgment оf the trial court is reversed and judgment is rendered that Travelers recover the amount of $17,000.00 from Seidel and Farmers.
Notes
. There is no complaint by Travelers about the judgment concerning Teresita Gonzales.