will be resolved in favor of coverage, “[t]he fact that the parties disagree as to coverage does not create an ambiguity.” Valmont Energy Steel, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 770, 773 (5th Cir.2004). The Texas Supreme Court has recently reiterated that a “policy imposes no duty to defend a claim that might have been alleged but was not, or a claim that more closely tracks the true factual circumstances surrounding the third-party claimant’s injuries but which, for whatever reason, has not been asserted.” Pine Oak Builders, 279 S.W.3d at 655-56. In that case, the insurance company would only have had a duty to defend if one of Pine Oak’s subcontractors had caused the damage, not if Pine Oak had itself caused i W.3d 493, 501 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, in analyzing this case, we may
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 the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend holding that the insurer did not have a duty to defend because the pleadings alleged that the defendants had acted intentionally rather than negligently holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend