With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an insurer to defend when there may be no ultimate duty to indemnify. This is true because the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. We are satisfied that the interests of justice and the conservation of scarce judicial resources support the course we have chosen.” Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Brennan, 534 A.2d 353, 354 (Me.1987) (citation omitted). We therefore conclude that the hardship to the insurer is outweighed by the competing interests of preventing duplicative litigation and sparing insureds the costs of defending a collateral action brought by the insurer to determine its obligations under the insurance contract before the nat parties’ stipulation of fact to determine duties to defend and indemnify); cf. Bowen v. Hanover Ins. Co., 599 A.2d 1150 (Me.1991) (<HOLDING>). In Dolley, the insurer filed its declaratory

A: holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer
B: holding that insurer had no duly to indemnify insured in view of the parties stipulation of fact
C: holding that the parties stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment
D: holding that under new york law for an insurer to have no duty to defend the court must find as a matter of law that based on the pleadings there was no possible factual or legal basis on which the insurer might eventually be held obligated to indemnify the insured
B.