marks omitted)); Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., 722 N.W.2d 283, 304 (Minn.2006) ("[We conclude that ... defense costs are [to bel apportioned equally among insurers whose [duty to defend is] triggered. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err when it apportioned defense costs equally among insurers whose policies were triggered."); Ames v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 79 N.C.App. 530, 340 S.E.2d 479, 486 (1986) ("We hold both [insurers] had a duty to defend [the insured] and thus the defense costs should be shared equally."); Tex.Prop. & Cas. Ins., 982 S.W.2d at 607 ("[Wle hold that under Texas law, an insurer's duty to defend its insured . is not reduced pro rata by the insurer's 'time on the risk' or by any other formula."). 11 . 931 P.2d 127, 140-42 (Utah 1997). 12 . Id. (<HOLDING>). 13 . Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Admiral
holding that insurance company operating under a reservation of rights had the right and the duty to control the defense until such time as it was determined that it had no liability insurance coverage holding that an insurance policy providing that the insurance company would pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request emphasis omitted did not establish an agreement that the insurer would cover attorney fees and costs to the insured in a declaratory action holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage holding that insurance providers would be allocated defense costs according to the period of time they provided coverage and the insured would be allocated defense costs according to the period of time it had no insurance coverage