With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the claim implicating coverage has been identified through the filing of a complaint. [¶ 11] Accordingly, the court correctly determined that Patrons’s declaratory judgment action does not come within any exception that would allow adjudication in advance of the filing of a complaint. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 1 . Although Collins was named as a party-in-interest in Patrons’s complaint, we have deleted him from the caption of this opinion. He was never served with process, and therefore is not properly before the court in this action. See Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Maine Teachers Ass'n, 449 A.2d 358, 358 n. 1 (Me.1982). 2 . It is undisputed that Collins has not filed an action against Garcia. 3 . See, e.g., Benning v. Allstate Ins. Co., 90 Md.App. 592, 602 A.2d 233, 237 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 4 . See Dolley, 669 A.2d at 1322-23 (relying

A: holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured
B: holding that where all necessary parties  including the insurer the insured and the third party claimant  had stipulated to the material facts in the dispute a declaratory judgment action on the insurers duty to indemnify could proceed
C: holding that injured tort claimant properly brought action against insurer prior to filing action against insured tortfeasor where coverage dispute did not depend on any fact or circumstance pertaining to the accident or the injuries suffered by the claimant
D: holding the report of doctor who was not present to testify and whose deposition had not been taken was properly excluded in action by insured against insurer on accident policy
C.