Vappi & Co. v. Aetna Casualty Co., 348 Mass. 427, 431 (1965). Application of this standard threatens to sweep a whole host of uncontemplated risks into the ambit of title insurance. See GMAC Mtge., supra at 740-741. To avoid such an aberration, we conclude that a title insurer’s duty to defend is triggered only where the policy specifically envisions the type of loss alleged. See Billings, supra at 201, quoting Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 439 Mass. 387, 394-395 (2003) (“when the allegations in the underlying complaint ‘lie expressly outside the policy coverage and its purpose, the insurer is relieved of the duty to investigate’ or defend the claimant” [emphasis added]). See also Bank of Miami Beach v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 239 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1970) (<HOLDING>); Pacific Am. Constr. v. Security Union Title,
holding that additional free title insurance provided a benefit to class members regardless of whether they made a claim on that insurance holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage holding a section 44034 fee award to be within the coverage of the employers workers compensation insurance policy holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for 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