conducted “in 1996 was the first time Greenbriar LP learned of the PCE contamination at and emanating from the [plaintiffs’] Facility.” Significantly, the complaint also contained allegations that in 1989 a Fairfax County Health inspector inspected plaintiffs’ store site and determined that at least ten releases of PCE had occurred. Based on this, the complaint alleged that plaintiffs were aware of the PCE contamination and the resulting property damage as early as 1989. The complaint, therefore, leaves open the possibility that the PCE contamination “first manifest[ed] itself’ during the period the pollution liability insurance was in effect, namely 1991 though 1995. Accordingly, Sentry had a duty to defend plaintiffs against the underlying lawsuit. See Town Crier, 721 F.Supp. at 103 (<HOLDING>). When the property damage from the discharges
holding claims alleging misrepresentation do not fall within the coverage of a comprehensive general liability policy and thus the duty to defend is not triggered holding that there is a duty to defend if any of the complaints allegations fall within the risk covered by the policy holding that an insurer had no duty to defend in the absence of any cause of action amounting to a potentially covered offense under the  insurance policy holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage holding insurers duty to defend is determined by allegations in the petition