(dissenting).
The trial court found that Church Mutual had a meritorious claim regarding coverage which had not been ruled on in this jurisdiction. When the trial court declared Church Mutual responsible as primary insurer, it did not find that Church Mutual had dealt in an unscrupulous manner. Although the question of coverage is always liberally construed in favor of an insured, this does not preclude an insurance company from requesting a court to rule on coverage. This is not a case involving reimbursement of the costs of defense between an insured and his carrier, but involves a dispute between two insurance companies insuring against the same risk. In fact, this record does not indicate that State Farm would not have incurred the same expenses in defending its exposure to liability had Church Mutual undertaken the defense from the beginning. A finding by a court establishing primary and excess coverage does not totally relieve an excess carrier’s exposure.
Under these facts, I would adopt the rationale from the cases holding that no duty flows from an insurance contract to another *278carrier since the contractual obligation under each contract is solely to the insured. See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Huitt, 336 F.2d 37, 44 (6th Cir.1964); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 285 F.2d 579, 582 (10th Cir.1960); Iowa Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 276 Minn. 362, 150 N.W.2d 233, 236-37 (1967); American Surety Co. v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co., 274 Minn. 81, 142 N.W.2d 304, 306 (1966).
Further, in St. Paul Sch. Dist. v. Columbia Transit, 321 N.W.2d 41 (Minn.1982), the insurer ultimately found not liable for contribution under an exclusion in its policy was nevertheless unable to recover the cost incurred in defending the personal injury action from another company which was involved in the litigation. The court drew an important distinction in that case between an action involving the insured and its insurer, and an action between two insurers:
“[No] contractual obligation [exists] to make one insurer accountable to the other for a breach of its independent obligation to the insured. The obligation of defending an insured and paying for the defense is a separate obligation existing exclusively between the insurer and the insured.”
Id., at 48 (quoting Iowa Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 150 N.W.2d at 236).
These two insurance companies insured against the same risk and their policies furnished a defense for their insureds. This is a duty to defend which is personal to each insurer. The expenses incurred by State Farm in defending as required by its policy is a cost of doing business. Therefore, State Farm should not be entitled to recover the costs of defending its insured pursuant to its contractual duty, because these costs were incurred to protect the company’s interest.*
I would affirm the decision of the trial court.
I am authorized to state that Justice WUEST joins in this dissent.
The end result in this case was, as the trial court found, Church Mutual contributed its policy limits of one million dollars in settlement of the Kindt lawsuit and State Farm contributed nothing toward this settlement.