of facts indicating potential coverage. Accordingly, the Court finds that there was never potential coverage for the accident between Marentes and Bichegkueva, and Defendant never had a duty to defend Marentes under the terms of the State Farm Policy. 5. Waiver and Estoppel Plaintiffs argue that, even if there is no coverage under the policy, Defendant waived or should be estopped from asserting its coverage defenses because Defendant allegedly provided a defense to Mar-entes without explicitly reserving its right to assert coverage defenses at a later time. Bichegkueva Resp. at 23-25. The burden is on the insured to prove that the assumption of a defense establishes waiver or estoppel. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Jioras, 24 Cal.App.4th 1619, 1628-31, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 840 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Under California law, an insurer is precluded
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 the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses holding that insured may recover from its insurer any attorney fees incurred in successfully attempting to force the insurer to defend an action against the insured holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance