In North Star Reins. Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 82 NY2d 281, the Court of Appeals found that the disparity in the premiums for the contractor's liability insurance and the owner's liability insurance signaled "that indemnification was contemplated by the parties." (Ibid.) "As a rule, an insurer that has paid a claim on behalf of an insured who is only vicariously liable for the loss is entitled to recover the amount paid by way of indemnity from the wrongdoer." (North Star Reins. Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 82 NY2d 281, 291.) "The mutual insurer, as subrogee of the owner, can fashion the litigation so as to minimize its liability under the [General Contractor Liability Policy]. By failing to assert a contractual indemnification claim on the owner's behalf, the insurer can trigger coverage under other insurance policies held by the contractor such as a workers' compensation or excess policy ." (North Star Reins. v. Continental, at 296.) North Star precludes subrogation between the owner and contractor to avoid an inequitable allocation of loss occasioned by the conflicted interests of the insurance carrier who controls the litigation (see, North Star Reins. v. Continental, supra at 298 [Simons, J., dissenting]). The Court of Appeals in North Star rejected "the Preindemnification Doctrine," which had deemed a contractual requirement by the property owner that it be named an additional insured, a waiver of the right to common-law indemnification stating: "We conclude that the theories advanced in support of preindemnification do not justify the departure from long-standing principles of indemnification." (North Star Reins. v. Continental, supra at 292.)