incurred by the defending insurer). In Iowa National the supreme court concluded that the equities between a defending insurer and non-defending insurer were “at best equal,” reasoning that the expenses incurred by the defending insurer were expenses that it agreed to incur pursuant to its contract with its insured. Id. at 368-69, 150 N.W.2d at 237. The supreme court noted that the defending insurer received premiums from its insured in exchange for its agreement to assume the risk of insuring these expenses, stating, “These charges are not in the nature of a payment of a debt for which another was primarily liable. They are [the defending insurer’s] expense of doing business.” Id. at 369, 150 N.W.2d at 237-38; see Jostens, Inc. v. Mission Ins. Co., 387 N.W.2d 161, 166 (Minn.1986) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Thus, equity does not compel
holding  he who seeks equity must do equity  recognizing that iowa national rejected the argument that equity compelled shared liability among insurers who were not in privity stating the insurer assuming the defense has no cause to complain because it is protecting its own interests and is only doing what it agreed and was paid a premium to do  holding that no binding insurance contract took effect because the initial premium was not paid 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 it is not