which, when taken together with the complaint’s allegations, indicate that the claim is within or potentially within the policy’s coverage.”). But Winklevoss points to no “true but un-pleaded facts” at all, much less true but unpleaded facts raising the potential for coverage that came to Federal’s knowledge before Winklevoss tendered the SASC. Winklevoss cites no deposition testimony or exhibits that came to light before its tender of the SASC that, when viewed in conjunction with the original complaint, show that its allegations held the potential for coverage. The only material, aside from the SASC, to which Winkl of specificity as to extent of injury was cured by plaintiffs deposition testimony); United States Fidelity, 193 Ill.App.3d at 1094, 140 Ill.Dec. 907, 550 N.E.2d at 1036 (<HOLDING>); Associated Indemnity Co., 68 Ill.App.3d at
holding that the trial court properly refused to consider allegations in the amended complaints that were disallowed holding that underlying complaints filed by several plaintiffs all contained express allegations of property damage and that because all complaints arose from the same set of circumstances the allegations in any single complaint can be inferred in the other complaints holding that there is a duty to defend if any of the complaints allegations fall within the risk covered by the policy holding that a court must take the complaints allegations as true no matter how incredulous the court may be holding that the trial court properly refused to consider allegations in the disallowed amended complaints