In Interstate Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Wrecking Co. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 23, Webcor Construction, Inc. (Webcor), a general contractor for a construction project, entered subcontracts with two subcontractors, Cleveland Wrecking Company (Cleveland) and Delta Steel Erectors (Delta). (Id. at p. 28.) In the subcontracts, Cleveland and Delta agreed to indemnify Webcor for liability arising out of their work and to procure general liability insurance with Webcor as an additional insured. (Ibid.) Only Delta complied with the latter obligation, obtaining a policy from Interstate listing Webcor as an additional insured. (Id. at pp. 28-29.) An employee of Delta (Frisby) sustained injuries at the job site, and filed suit against Webcor and Cleveland (the Frisby action). (Interstate, at p. 29.) Webcor tendered its defense and indemnification to Cleveland pursuant to the Webcor-Cleveland subcontract, and to Interstate pursuant to the Interstate-Delta policy. (Ibid.) Cleveland rejected the tender; Interstate accepted it. (Ibid.) Webcor settled with Frisby for $ 575,000, with Interstate funding the settlement and paying an additional $ 152,000 in attorney fees and costs to defend Webcor in the Frisby action. (Interstate, at p. 30.) Cleveland also settled with Frisby. (Ibid.) Interstate then filed a complaint for subrogation against Cleveland, alleging Cleveland had breached its contract with Webcor by failing to defend and indemnify Webcor in the Frisby action. (Interstate, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 30.) Cleveland filed a demurrer, arguing Webcor did not incur damages as a result of Cleveland's alleged breach of the indemnification provision in the subcontract. (Id. at pp. 30-31.) After the trial court sustained the demurrer, the appellate court reversed. (Id. at pp. 28, 31, 50.) The appellate court rejected as "untenable" Cleveland's contention Webcor did not suffer damages because it was defended and indemnified in the Frisby action. (Interstate, at pp. 34-35.) The court noted, "Under Cleveland's view, no insurer could ever state a cause of action for subrogation in order to recover amounts it paid on behalf of its insured, because of the very fact that it had paid amounts on behalf of its insured. Not only is this illogical, it contradicts decades of cases consistently holding that an insurer may be equitably subrogated to its insured's indemnification claims." (Id. at p. 34) In Interstate, the court compared the equitable positions of (1) an insurer whose policy covered a construction general contractor, and (2) a subcontractor that agreed to indemnify the general contractor for claims arising out of a construction project. (Interstate, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 42-44.) The Interstate court concluded: "The parties directly involved in the transaction are better able to evaluate and control the risk. Therefore, for purposes of weighing the equities in an equitable subrogation case, and absent language in the insurance policy or indemnification agreement leading to a contrary conclusion . . . , the Agreement between the parties who were connected to the incident giving rise to the loss . . . creates the greater equitable responsibility for indemnification, as compared to that of the general liability insurer . . . ." (Id. at p. 44, )