billion dollars, and appeared to cover all of Pay-less’s stores throughout the country. Thus, the premium sizes do not reflect that USF & G contemplated the specific risk of Mr. Hincher’s death, an employee of a subcontractor installing displays at one of Payless’s stores, any more than CU’s policy contemplated that risk, which involved an employee of CU’s named insured injured in the course of the named insured’s business. The third factor of the closer to the risk test adds little to our analysis, as neither policy specifically contemplated the risk or the instrumentality at issue here, so neither one can be said to have provided primary rather than incidental coverage for the loss. Cf. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Republic Underw Co., 433 N.W.2d 82, 86 (Minn.1988) (<HOLDING>). The primary risks contemplated by the USF & G
holding that a school districts policy requiring fulltime attendance by all students did not establish a system of individualized exceptions that give rise to the application of a subjective test when the exceptions to the policy were confined to strict categories of students such as fifthyear seniors and special education students holding that absent follow form language provision that excess policy would continue as underlying policy did not impose coverage as provided in underlying policy holding that a schools excess policy was primary over a students homeowners policy for injuries to the student during physical education class holding that a professional liability policy provided primary coverage over a general liability policy for acts committed by a pastor during counseling sessions holding that homeowners policy precluded coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts