herein, this purported dispute is not relevant to the resolution of this case. 4 . Defendants allege that Capitol Specialty refused to negotiate a settlement offer made jointly to defendants and the law firm of Grant E. Morris that specifically contemplated that defendants’ insurer would fund no more than the $7 million limit of the Policy and that Morris’ insurer would fund the remaining $1 million. (Defs.' Opp’n at 14.) Capitol Specialty argues that it has no duty to defend or settle a claim if there is no coverage for the claim under the Policy. (PL's Reply at 12.) See Am. Nat'l Red Cross v. Traveler’s Indem. Co. of R.I., 896 F.Supp. 8, 11 (D.D.C.1995) ("An insured’s claim of bad faith breach of contract against its insurer fails if coverage for the unde upp.2d 147, 157 (D.D.C.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, even if defendants’
holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances recognizing that a material misrepresentation or omission of fact in an insurance application relied on by the insurer in issuing a policy renders the coverage voidable at the insurance companys option holding an insurer has a right to rely on statements made in an insurance application holding that an order directing an insurer to advance legal fees pursuant to an insurance policy was an immediately appealable injunction recognizing an insurers right to rescind an insurance contract where the insured has made fraudulent or material misrepresentation in insurance application