and indemnification claims that were brought after the resolution of the underlying litigation. See e.g. Lucker Mfg. v. Home Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 808 (3d Cir.1994) (action against insured for bad faith failure to indemnify or defend); First Fid. Bancorporation v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 1990 WL 165937 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 25, 1990) (addressing insured’s failure to consent to settlement and indemnification liability after final settlement of underlying litigation was approved and funds were deposited in escrow). Other cases involve claims in which it is clear as a matter of law, that the claims asserted in the complaint fall within an exclusion under the policy and there are no factual disputes. See e.g. First Oak Brook Corp. Syndicate v. Comly Holding Corp., 93 F.3d 92 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Haver, 555 Pa.
holding that coverage arguably existed under an insurance policy for claims against an employer and employees for an alleged assault and battery of bar patrons and that the insurer had a duty to defend holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that claims were clearly excluded from coverage under assault and battery exclusion and therefore insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify