U.S. Fire tacitly acknowledged in its 2007 papers (and also before us now) that some portion of the ENSR bills relating to the 2004 site work constitutes recoverable defense costs. Yet, as with the legal fees, U.S. Fire made no attempt to pay a single cent, nor is there any record evidence that it made any effort to resolve the sizable remuneration issue. U.S. Fire’s apathy stands in sharp contrast to the Museum’s multiple requests for some measure of contractual defense benefits in 2004 and 2005; its request for clarification in August 2005 of what “defense expenditures [its insurer may have paid] to date [and] on what terms”; and its express reminder about the ENSR bills in its November 2006 correspondence. Cf. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Maguire, 662 F.3d 51, 56-58 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). We also reject U.S. Fire’s attempt to
holding that insureds criminal convictions were sufficient to preclude relitigation of the issue of the insureds subjective intent for purposes of evaluating the insurers duty to defend holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss holdingas a matter of law that the insurers diligent investigation efforts and readiness to comply negated allegations of breach especially when compared to the insureds lackadaisical conduct holding that insureds breach of contract suit against insurer raised a coverage issue which was not settled by insurers payment of only part of what insured was claiming in breach of contract action