With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Insurance's counsel stated at oral argument that this finding was erroneous, and that, in fact, Cincinnati Insurance had adopted the affirmative defenses of the defendants in the underlying case, not those asserted by Continental Casualty. The record supports counsel's statement and counsel for the circuit court conceded as much at oral argument. See Third-party Defendant Cincinnati Insurance Company's Answer and Affirmative Defenses at 5. 16 The Carkel decision took guidance from Black's Law Dictionary, which defined parties as united in interest "when they are similarly interested in and will be similarly affected by the determination of the issues involved in the action." Carkel, 141 Wis. 2d at 267. 17 Cf. Miller Brewing Co. v. LIRC, 173 Wis. 2d 700, 722, 495 N.W.2d 660 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 18 See SCR 20:1,7(a), governing conflict of

A: holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate
B: holding that the interests of two insurance companies were adverse under wis stat  102231a 19891990 relating to workers compensation when the respective liability of the two insurance companies depends on the determination of the date of injury
C: holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury
D: holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies
B.