a resolution of the Plough action. On February 13, 1984, after the Plough action was settled, IFF served an amended answer and counterclaim. IFF requested a declaration that CU was liable under the insurance policy and sought damages for CU’s failure to defend. The case proceeded to trial before the Court and a jury in March 1986; the jury returned a verdict that IFF was not entitled to damages. IFF subsequently moved for a directed verdict on its motion therefor at the close of the case, on which decision had been reserved, and for a judgment notwithstand ing the verdict. On April 28, 1986, the Court granted IFF’s motion in part; it held that, as a matter of law, CU had breached its duty to defend IFF in the Plough action and was liable to IFF for the reason 449 (2d Dept.1977) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty
holding in a case where the insurer brought a declaratory judgment action and the insured filed a counterclaim that 60 of the costs were attributable to defending and 40 to prosecuting holding that insured who brought third party action against insurer could recover costs incurred in defending insurers counterclaim for declaratory relief since the insureds posture in the counterclaim was that of a defendant holding that insured may recover legal fees incurred in defending itself in a declaratory judgment action brought by insurer but not for those incurred in prosecuting cross claims and counterclaims against insurers holding on summary judgment before the question of the insurers obligation to indemnify was decided that the insurer was liable for the costs of the insured in defending the declaratory judgment action because it breached its duty to defend holding that insured could recover the costs of defending a declaratory judgment action brought by the injured party to compel the insurer to defend but could not recover the costs associated with prosecuting crossclaims against the insurer