determine whether a liability insurer has the initial duty to defend third-party actions against the insured by matching the third party’s complaint with the policy provisions. Herbert A. Sullivan, 439 Mass, at 394, 788 N.E.2d at 530. “[I]f the allegations of the complaint are ‘reasonably susceptible’ of an interpretation that they state or adumbrate a claim covered by the policy terms, the insurer must undertake the defense.” Id. “The scope of an insurer’s duty to defend is based on ‘the facts alleged in the complaint and those facts which are known to the insurer.’ ” Id. (quoting Boston Symphony Orch., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 406 Mass. 7, 10-11, 545 N.E.2d 1156, 1158 (1989)); see also Open Software Found., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 307 F.3d 11, 14-15 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of a complaint that might
holding that for purposes of determining whether complete diversity exists a court must examine the plaintiffs pleading as of the time of the petition for removai holding that under massachusetts law insurer must examine plaintiffs allegations in conjunction with facts it knows or readily should know when determining whether coverage exists under policy holding that when the insurer takes the position that the policy does not cover the complaint the insurer must 1 defend the suit under a reservation of rights or 2 seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage if the insurer fails to take either of these actions it will be estopped from later raising policy defenses to coverage holding that jurisdiction exists for determining if disputed facts are material holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage