With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See also Prescott’s Altama Datsun, Inc. v. Monarch Ins. Co., 253 Ga. 317, 319 S.E.2d 445 (1984)(risks not covered by the terms of an insurance policy, or risks excluded therefrom, while normally not subject to the doctrine of waiver and estoppel, may be subject to the doctrine where the insurer, without reserving its rights, assumes the defense of an action or continues such defense with knowledge, actual or constructive, of noncov-erage). We agree with the rationale of these authorities. Accordingly, we hold that Northfield would be estopped to deny coverage if MSI relied on Northfield’s defense to its detriment and was prejudiced thereby. See First Nat’l Bank v. Ulibarri, 38 Colo.App. 428, 557 P.2d 1221 (1976); cf. Clementi v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 P.3d 223 (Colo.2001)(<HOLDING>). See generally 14 Russ, supra, §§ 202:54 &

A: holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured
B: holding that an insurer can deny benefits based on late notice by the insured only when the insurer is prejudiced by the delay
C: holding that if the insured is only partially compensated by the insurer both the insurer and the insured are real partiesininterest
D: 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.