were not parallel. See id. Here, the district court primarily rested its discretionary decision on the possibility that Crime Stoppers’s liability to Excellent Computing — and thus First Mercury’s coverage liability — will never arise. We acknowledge that “whether the judgment in the federal' declaratory action would settle the controversy” is one factor that a district court can consider in deciding whether to exercise its discretion. Id. But this factor is insufficient, standing alone, to close the courthouse door; it must be weighed against the potential that an insurance coverage determination could “serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal relations at issue.” Id.; see, e.g., Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Cent. Jersey Invs., Inc., 632 So.2d 138, 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). There is no indication that the district
holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage holding insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured since the underlying suit arises out of a breach of contract which is not an accident or occurrence contemplated or covered by the provisions of a general liability insurance policy recognizing the potential benefits of a coverage determination on the duty to indemnify before the conclusion of an underlying negligence suit including allowing for intelligent decisionmaking regarding settlement holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend