the CGL policy. Moreover, Ribi contends that Travelers’s declaratory judgment action forced the District Court to consider two issues of first impression and such legal uncertainty on its own gives rise to a duty to defend. ¶40 We apply the “four-corners” rule as the policy’s language determines an insurer’s duty to defend its insured. City of Bozeman v. AIU Insurance Co. (1993), 262 Mont. 370, 377, 865 P.2d 268, 272 (“a liability insurer has no duty to defend an action against its insured when the claim or complaint clearly falls outside the scope of the policy’s coverage”). The acts giving rise to the claim form the basis for coverage, not any legal theories contained in the underlying complaint. See New Hampshire Ins. Group v. Strecker (1990), 244 Mont. 478, 481, 798 P.2d 130, 132 (<HOLDING>). Simply put, if the asserted claim is not
holding that a negligent retention claim was properly dismissed when there was no underlying tort upon which it could have been based holding that the proper focus when determining the starting point of the limitations period  is upon the time of the discriminatory acts not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts became most painful  holding tort of negligence must be based upon duty other that one imposed by contract holding that coverage could not be premised upon theories of negligence in the underlying complaint where based upon numerous acts of molestation that could not be deemed negligent acts holding that mother could not be charged with criminal endangering the welfare of her child based upon prenatal acts of smoking cocaine