the duty to defend. At most, the court did not expressly address whether an insured would have a viable cause of action if it alleged an insurer’s payment of an invalid claim violated the duty to defend. See id. We conclude the provision giving the insurer the right to settle negates existence of a contractual obligation to pay only valid claims, regardless of the different policy provisions cited by the Duddlesten insured and Methodist. Under its plain meaning, the “duty to defend ... any claim ... for benefits payable by this insurance” merely imposed an obligation on Zurich to assume responsibility for handling a claim when benefits are payable under workers’ compensation law. See Burlington Ins. Co. v. Tex. Krishnas, Inc., 143 S.W.3d 226, 229 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2004, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Methodist does not allege Zurich refused to
holding that there is a duty to defend if any of the complaints allegations fall within the risk covered by the policy 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 holding that an insurer had no duty to defend in the absence of any cause of action amounting to a potentially covered offense under the  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 recognizing in context of general liability policy if petition contains allegations which when fairly and reasonably construed state cause of action potentially covered by policy insurer has duty to defend insured in underlying suit