of the trust mortgagor. A finding that Lawyers Title had a duty to wade into this partnership morass would be inconsistent with Florida law as established in Bank of Miami Beach and would force insurers to “underwrite risks not bargained for by either party.” Pioneer Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Fourth Commerce Properties Corp., 487 So.2d 1051, 1054 (Fla.1986); cf. Barczewski v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 210 Cal.App.3d 406, 258 Cal.Rptr. 386, 388 (1989) (noting that accepting the plaintiffs argument for coverage “would dramatically change the function and purpose of title insurance with enormous social and financial repercussions”). If the alleged facts and legal theories do not fall within a policy’s coverage, no duty to defend arises. See, e.g., Lenox Liquors, 358 So.2d at 536 (<HOLDING>); Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. CV Reit, Inc., 588
holding that allegations of intentional acts causing injury resulted in the complaint falling outside the coverage of an insurance policy insuring only against accidental injury holding that liability insurer had duty to defend insured against complaint that alleged intentional tort and negligence in the alternative even when policy excluded coverage for intentional torts holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination holding that liability insurance policy that expressly excluded coverage for the insureds intentional acts did not cover punitive damages award assessed against the insured and stating in dictum that public policy forbids insurance coverage for punitive damages holding that intentional acts do not exclude coverage under the occurrence language unless the injury was expected or intended