suffered or claimed to have been suffered by any other person....” (Equivest’s Mot. for Summ. J. at Ex. 1, ¶ 12.) The phrase “claimed to have suffered” would carry little meaning if it did not refer to claims alleged but not yet determined, and it is just such claims that Equivest is currently expending funds to address. The provision also states that GK must hold CAI, and therefore Equivest, harmless from “all reasonable costs and expenses incurred ... therewith.” That language is the functional equivalent of a requirement to defend and indemnify. Because the underlying claim falls within the ambit of that contractual indemnity agreement, the Court finds that Equivest is entitled to a defense and indemnification by GK. See Pacific Indem. Co. v. Linn, 766 F.2d 754, 760 (3d Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); see also C.H. Heist Caribe Corp. v. American
holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy holding insurers duty to defend is determined by allegations in the petition holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage holding that an insurers duty to defend pursuant to an insurance contract arises whenever the complaint filed by the injured party may potentially come within the policys coverage