|
4940 Despite the fact that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, an insurance company does not have a duty to defend that is based solely on an allegation that an intentional attack on a third party by the insured was motivated by self-defense; in the absence of credible evidence of facts that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety, a mere self-serving statement that insured was in fear is insufficient.CitationDELGADO v INTERINS EXCH (Self Defense Coverage) 47 C4 302 , rev’g 152 CA4 671, T/AT 6/07 [See Gray v Zurich 65 C2 263]
|
|
