coverage. We held that “the policy language defining ‘accidents’ may include intentional acts if the damages were not objectively intended or expected by the insured.” Fisher Builders, ¶ 20. ¶27 In a critical distinction from this case, in Fisher Builders the insurer defended the insured under a reservation of rights in the underlying litigation and initiated a declaratory action to determine whether the policy provided coverage for the claim under which it had a duty to indemnify the insured. Fisher Builders, ¶ 7. Thus, in Fisher Builders, we were faced with a duty to indemnify issue, not a duty to defend issue. “The duty to defend is independent from and broader than the duty to indemnify created by the same insurance contract.” Staples, ¶ 21; accord Schwan, ¶ 15; Freyer, ¶ 26 (<HOLDING>). Unless there exists “an unequivocal
holding that claims were clearly excluded from coverage under assault and battery exclusion and therefore insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that an insurer is not estopped from challenging its duty to indemnify even if it hadand breachedits duty to defend