With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The record demonstrates that the defense was tendered at the earliest feasible time. Moreover, Continental has consistently refused coverage, and there is no evidence that Continental would have responded favorably to an earlier tender. Under these circumstances, substantially different from those surrounding the tender in SCSC, there is no legal cause shown why Domtar should not be entitled to recover its pre-tender defense costs from Continental. 7. Additional attorney fee issues. Continental raises several additional attorney fee issues. Each merits brief attention. a. Continental, in effect, has asked us to overrule the supreme court’s decision in Morrison v. Swenson, 274 Minn. 127, 142 N.W.2d 640 (1966), where the court concluded that an insured may recover its legal fees incurr 7 (<HOLDING>). In Independent Sch. Dist. No. 697 v. St. Paul

A: holding that chapter 38 permits an insured to recover attorney fees from the insurer
B: holding that when the insured brings an action for a declaration of coverage and prevails absent a bad faith denial of coverage by the insurer attorneys fees incurred by the insured in the prosecution of that action are not incurred at the request of the insurer
C: holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith
D: holding that insured may recover from its insurer any attorney fees incurred in successfully attempting to force the insurer to defend an action against the insured
D.