is seeking a declaratory judgment as to its duty to indemnify Raia, the Estates have never instituted a civil suit against Raia to establish his liability for the shootings. In the ordinary case, “[a]n insurer may not litigate its duty to indemnify until the liability of the insured has been determined.” Hanover Ins. Co. v. Crocker, 1997 ME 19, ¶ 1 n. 1, 688 A.2d 928, 929 n. 1. Nonetheless, we have noted a few limited exceptions to this requirement. See Patrons Oxford Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 1998 ME 38, ¶ 7, 707 A.2d 384, 386. Because Raia was not a party to this action or to the stipulations, however, those stipulations, without more, are insufficient to place this ease within one of those exceptions. See Northern Security Ins. Co., Inc. v. Dolley, 669 A.2d 1320, 1321, 1323 (Me.1996) (<HOLDING>). At oral argument the parties stipulated to
holding that insurer had no duly to indemnify insured in view of the parties stipulation of fact holding that where all necessary parties  including the insurer the insured and the third party claimant  had stipulated to the material facts in the dispute a declaratory judgment action on the insurers duty to indemnify could proceed 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 on summary judgment before the question of the insurers obligation to indemnify was decided that the insurer was liable for the costs of the insured in defending the declaratory judgment action because it breached its duty to defend 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