Acuity must have a direct and legally protectable interest in the proceedings. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 69 F.3d at 1380. Because Acuity’s policy was issued in the state of Wisconsin, Wisconsin law applies in determining the nature of the company’s interest in this suit. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Rugg & Knopp, Inc., 165 F.3d 1087, 1091 (7th Cir.1999). An insurance company has a duty to defend its insured when the relevant policies would provide coverage if the allegations within the four corners of plaintiffs complaint are proven. School Dist. of Shorewood v. Wausau Ins. Cos., 170 Wis.2d 347, 364, 488 N.W.2d 82, 87 (1992); see also Sola Basic Industries, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 90 Wis.2d 641, 644-46, 280 N.W. ssociation, 98 Wis.2d 66, 72, 295 N.W.2d 205 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Carney v. Village of Darien, 60 F.3d 1273,
holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity holding that insurer must pay for defense after it declined to provide a defense and coverage was found to exist recognizing that an insurers obligation to pay for prenotification legal expenses is concomitant with its right to control the defense and that a contrary result would require the insurer to pay for those defense costs which it had no opportunity to control holding insurer vicariously liable for defense counsels negligent defense of a medical malpractice claim holding that delayed notice relieves insurer of obligation to pay defense costs if it was actually prejudiced by delay