the underlying lawsuit created the potential for coverage under the policy. Gunderson v. Fire Ins. Exch., 37 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1114, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 (1995) (“[T]he issues here are what facts respondent knew at the time appellants tendered the defense of the Ferrando lawsuit, both from the allegations on the face of the third party complaint, and from extrinsic information available to it at the time; and whether these known facts created a potential for coverage under the terms of the Policy”). If there was no potential for coverage under the insurance policy based on the underlying complaint and extrinsic facts made known to the insurer, then the insurer has not breached the insurance contract by refusing to defend. Montrose I, 6 Cal.4th at 295, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467, 861 P.2d 1153 (<HOLDING>). “The insured has the burden of showing that
holding that where claims are cast wholly within policy exclusion there is no duty to defend holding that an insurer can normally dispute coverage even after a court determines there is a duty to defend holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that duty to defend ends when it is apparent there is no potential for coverage holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend