It protests that the principal purpose test allows a district court to make arbitrary realignment decisions. Antagonism between parties should be resolved by the pleadings and the nature of the controversy. The pleadings and the nature of the suit clearly manifest the proper alignment of the dispute. The court found that any disputes existing among the insurers regarding contribution are ancillary to the primary issue of the duty to indemnify. It arranged the parties around this primary dispute, placing the insurers as plain- tiffs and the insured as the defendant.
Practicalities undergird the district court's reasoning.
If none, or only one, provided coverage, the question of the insurers' liability to each other would be moot. The district court's findings and conclusions with respect to realignment were proper. The Sixth and Third Circuits have come to similar conclusions under comparable facts. The dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction is affirmed.