the mortgagor, or failure to properly execute the mortgage. Here, however, JDC requests that this court find that a title company had a duty to defend an action in which JDC, in the end, asserted eleven claims, only two of which had to do with the covered mortgages, and in which BST asserted seventeen affirmative defenses, only five of which, even by JDC’s contentions, had any relation to the mortgages at all. In issuing the title policies, Lawyers Title did not insure the validity or col-lectability of the debt underlying the mortgages; nor did Lawyers Title make itself responsible for discovering the existence of, much less predicting the ramifications of the collapse of, the partnership relationship between the mortgagee and the benefi .2d 1075, 1075-76 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). We need not address whether, therefore, the
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 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 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 arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts