coverage in order to trigger indemnity. To determine whether the claim is within coverage, one must look to the provisions of the indemnity agreement itself. See United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Napier Elec. & Const. Co., Inc. 571 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Ky.Ct.App.1978). Under Kentucky law, parties may contract “for indemnification for — among other things — the costs incident to potential legal liability as well as for the legal liability itself.” See Thompson v. The Budd Co., 199 F.3d 799, 806-07 (6th Cir.1999). Thus, there are two conceivable bases for holding an insurer liable for, insured’s legal liabilities — a .judgment or a contractual agreement covering potential legal liability. Martin Cnty. Coal Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 792 F.Supp.2d 958, 961 (E.D.Ky.2011) (<HOLDING>) a judgment; or 2) a contractual agreement
holding insurer not liable for bad faith when it denied insureds claim based on a good faith dispute regarding the interpretation of a rule holding that insureds demand to insurer was liquidated when insurer did not point to any evidence at trial in support of its contention that damages were disputed holding that the excess carrier was liable only for the insureds deductible which was not covered by the primary insurer holding that under montana common law an insurer cannot be held liable for bad faith in denying a claim if the insurer had a reasonable basis for contesting the claim holding that there are only two conceivable bases for holding an insurer liable for its insureds liabilities 1