reasonable expectations of a layperson. Id. at 202, 187 P.3d at 586. 23 . The Court notes that AmerisourceBergen cited Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995), which involved abstention under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and not Younger, for the proposition that "abstention to avoid concur rent, duplicative litigation is available in some very limited circumstances.” AmerisourceBergen, 495 F.3d at 1151. For the reasons discussed, however, Burlington’s reliance on AmerisourceBergen is unavailing. 24 . To the extent Hawai’i law would allow for reimbursement in the circumstances at bar, such a right to reimbursement would likely be equitable in nature, although still an "at law” claim for monetary damages. See Scottsdale II, 2007 WL 2247795 at *3-8 (<HOLDING>); Porter v. Hu, 116 Hawai'i 42, 56-57, 169 P.3d
holding that insurer is not required to pay cost of defending action it was never afforded an opportunity to defend holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts holding that the hawaii supreme court would likely apply equitable principles of quasicontract restitution and unjust enrichment to allow an insurer to be reimbursed for the cost of defending a lawsuit it was determined postsettlement not to have had a duty to defend 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 that insurer had a continuing duty to defend