Travelers insured several subcontractors who worked on two subdivisions developed by Pulte.  As required by their subcontracts, Pulte was made an additional insured under their Travelers policy.  When Pulte was sued for construction defects in the two subdivisions, Travelers provided a defense.  Later, it intervened to sue other subcontractors to recover its defense costs on an equitable subordination theory.  This decision affirms the judgment agaisnt Travelers.  It wrongly had sought to recover its entire defense costs from each subcontractor.  However, none of them worked on every home in the two subdivisions, and their contract with Pulte only required them to defend Pulte if the suit concerned some defect in their scope of work  So the subcontractors were only required to defend Pulte against portions of the underlying lawsuit.  Since Travelers did not establish which part of the action each subcontractor was liable to defend, but instead sought to recover its entire cost of defense from each, the trial court correctly found it failed to prove three elements of its equitable subordination claim.