prior to the end of the underlying litigation could create a conflict between the insurer’s duty to defend and its interest in avoiding coverage). Further, Hartford’s claim regarding the duty to defend will be adjudicated in the context of this lawsuit, and if that claim is resolved in its favor, Hartford’s duty to indemnify will also be extinguished. Hartford directs the Court to several cases which it contends support the proposition that a declaratory judgment on the duty to indemnify may be entertained before liability has been determined in the underlying action. The Court has reviewed the cases identified by Hartford and finds them to be distinguishable from the circumstances here. For example, several cases cited by Hartford are cases involving 725 A.2d 743 (1999) (<HOLDING>). In these cases, there is no duty to defend,
holding that factual allegations in underlying complaint constituted knowing endangerment as a matter of law and thus there was no duty to defend or indemnify under the knowing endangerment coverage exclusion holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend holding that claims were clearly excluded from coverage under assault and battery exclusion and therefore insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify 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