Ins. Co., 429 N.W.2d 695, 697 (Minn.Ct. App.1988) (concluding that a liability policy issued to a daycare provider for her business provided primary coverage for an injury to a child in the daycare over the daycare provider’s homeowner’s policy because the liability policy specifically described the type of risk involved). We turn then to application of the “total policy insuring intent” analysis, which focuses on the primary risks and functions of each policy. Our review of each policy under this analysis convinces us that the loss here should be shared pro rata. Both policies provide general liability coverage rather than coverage for a specific risk or instrumentality. Cf. Redeemer Covenant Church of Brooklyn Park v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 71, 80-81 (Minn.Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>); Interstate Fire & Cas. Co. v. Auto-Owners
holding that a standard employers liability policy is not an ocean marine policy holding that a schools excess policy was primary over a students homeowners policy for injuries to the student during physical education class holding two exclusions in commercial general liability policy were ambiguous because coverage provided in one section was taken away in another section holding that insurance company had duty to provide coverage for churchs negligent supervision of pastor under professional liability policy because policy did not contain clause excluding coverage for actions arising out of a criminal act or licentious immoral or sexual behavior holding that a professional liability policy provided primary coverage over a general liability policy for acts committed by a pastor during counseling sessions