enrolled and should have been enrolled in the CIP. Further, it contends that the CIP exclusion applies not only to CSS but to the additional insureds, BE & K and SteelFab, because the injury arose out of CSS’s operations covered by a CIP. While there may be an issue of fact as to whether CSS was eligible to be enrolled and should have been enrolled in the CIP, Amerisure’s position nevertheless fails for several reasons. First of all, under North Carolina law, the applicability of any exclusion must be apparent from the allegations of the pleadings alone; an insurer cannot rely on evidence outside the four corners of the pleadings to deny a defense. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 724 F.Supp. 1173, 1176 (M.D.N.C. 1989), aff'd 919 F.2d 235, 239 (4th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). In Vigilant, the court made clear that an
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 that in north carolina an insurer properly determines whether it has a duty to defend by applying what is generally known as the comparison test under that analysis only two documents are pertinent the insurance policy and the complaint holding that an insurer can normally dispute coverage even after a court determines there is a duty to defend recognizing that policy determines duty holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage