insured states “facts which appear[ ] to bring [a plaintiff’s] claimed injury within the policy coverage.” Missionaries of Company of Mary, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 155 Conn. 104, 110, 230 A.2d 21 (1967). The insurer cannot avoid this “duty by looking beyond the allegations of, [the plaintiff’s] complaint and by importing facts learned from outside sources.” Id. at 111, 230 A.2d 21. Interpreting this rule, the Connecticut courts have required the insurer to defend even when the allegations against its insured, as pleaded, were “groundless,” id., at 112, 230 A.2d 21; Krevolin v. Dimmick, 39 Conn.Supp. 44, 52, 467 A.2d 948 (1983), and cases cited therein, and even when requiring a defense would seem to eviscerate the clear, plain intent of a clause excluding coverage. Id. (<HOLDING>) In the underlying state action, the state
holding that an assistant professor hired for a fixed term of one academic year had no property interest in his job because the terms of his employment allowed that his contract not be renewed holding as a matter of law that a police officer was not acting within the scope of his employment when assaulting an acquaintance of a woman he had detained holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction holding that a homeowners policy insurer had to defend a college professor notwithstanding the presence of a standard business pursuits exclusion even though said professor admitted that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he threw a piece of chalk thereby injuring the plaintiffstudent in an attempt to discipline another student who was disrupting his class holding that a university professor was not denied the right to pursue his choice of career because he remained free to pursue his chosen profession at another university