For these reasons, I do not find that the Policy is ambiguous or illusory. In conclusion, the Second Amended Complaint does not allege a single claim against Integration and Callahan that is not precluded by the Policy’s Computer Software Exclusion. Because the Computer Software Exclusion bars coverage for all of the claims contained.in the underlying suit, I need not determine whether the other policy exclusions preclude coverage. Additionally, having found that Maryland Casualty has no duty to defend, it likewise has no duty to indemnify Integration and Callahan in the underlying suit. See, e.g., Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. JDC (America) Corp., 52 F.3d 1575, 1580 (11th Cm. 1995) (noting that “duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify.”); Smartcop, 2012 WL 4344571 at *6 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Accordingly, it is hereby
holding that where claims are cast wholly within policy exclusion there is no duty to defend holding that duty to defend ends when it is apparent there is no potential for coverage holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify 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