whether a duty to defend exists, we should look at the terms of the contract and the allegations contained in the complaint. According to the City, if the allegations in the complaint fall within the terms of the contract, then the duty to defend is triggered. BPLW, on the other hand, argues that a contractual duty to defend can only be triggered if vicarious liability is alleged in the underlying complaint. While BPLW acknowledges that our case law suggests that the City’s view is correct, it argues that the cases that set out this rule all involve insurance contracts and thus that the rule is inapplicable to a duty to defend contained in other types of contracts. See, e.g., Bernalillo County Deputy Sheriffs Ass’n v. County of Bernalillo, 114 N.M. 695, 697, 845 P.2d 789, 791 (1992) (<HOLDING>). We disagree with BPLW and, as we explain
holding that an insurers duty to defend pursuant to an insurance contract arises whenever the complaint filed by the injured party may potentially come within the policys coverage holding insurers duty to defend is determined by allegations in the petition 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 that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured