, uncertain about whether it will have to pay the claim out of pocket. Knowing this, it will be encouraged to settle the case quickly and for as little as possible (which are the exact same motivations the insurer would have should it have chosen to defend). However, if the Court were to require the actual"legal-liability-rule, the insured would also have to worry about the case being sufficiently developed so that more 'onerous standard could be met. While it is not clear that the actual-legal-liability rule requires the Court to “try a case within case” in every instance, the rule certainly requires a deep delving into the facts of-the third-party claim that initiated the coverage question. See Ky. Sch. Bds. Ins. Trust v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 907 F.Supp. 1036, 1037-38 (E.D.Ky.1995) (<HOLDING>). The insured would then feel pressure to drag
holding that reinsurer could be directly liable to an insured where the reinsurance agent was the ultimate consistent reimburser of losses of the insured and this status was conveyed to the insured holding that a subrogation claim required the parties to try the case as a casewithinacase to determine if the insured would have been liable to thirdparty plaintiff holding that a motion for contribution would be dispositive of a claim under rule 2311f and therefore if requested by one of the parties a hearing on the motion would have been required recognizing equitable subrogation holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured