disputed, require determination much in advance of judgment since they will designate the bearer of ultimate liability in the underlying cases and hence the bearer of the onus and risks of settlement. So viewed, the controversy is then quite proper for a judicial determination now. Id. at 823. The AC & S court went on to state that “[t]he obligation to defend is a current one as to which the parties are in conflict. It is independent of the facts of the underlying causes and must, by definition, be handled at this time.” Id. Equivest is in a position similar to that of the installer in AC & S. As in AC & S, Equivest’s claim for defense is ripe for consideration. Id.; see also Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc., v. Wyse Technology, The Software Link, Inc., 912 F.2d 643, 650 (3d Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). The issue of providing a defense arises
holding that a claim for indemnification was not ripe where it arose under common law and distinguishing this holding from ac  s in which the claim arose under contract and was thus ripe holding that this court lacked jurisdiction under  46110 for lack of finality and that the district court also lacked jurisdiction because the orders were not final and thus not ripe for review holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication holding that a plaintiffs takings claim was not ripe for review where the state court never explicitly reached the merits of their claim and no procedural bar existed to prevent review holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it arose out of the same conduct as a preempted contract claim