that whenever an insurer has a duty to defend and is controlling the defense, the insurer has a duty to inform the insured of the insured’s interest in obtaining an allocated award and the insured is “entitled to make the decision whether to seek an allocated [award].” Duke v. Hoch, 468 F.2d 973, 979 (5th Cir.1972) (concluding that an insurer’s reservation of its right to contest coverage was not sufficient to advise its insured of the insured’s interest in an allocated verdict, and therefore the insured was relieved of the burden to prove allocation of the verdict unless the insurer could prove the verdict represented, in whole or in part, noncovered claims); see also, e.g., Camden-Clark Mem’l Hosp. Ass’n v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 224 W.Va. 228, 682 S.E.2d 566, 575-76 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Gay & Taylor, Inc. v. St Paul Fire & Marine
holding that the insureds ordinary burden to allocate a verdict between covered and noncovered claims does not shift to the insurer unless the insurer had an affirmative duty to defend the underlying claims holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts holding that a claim against an insurer for vexatious refusal to pay cannot be maintained where the court finds that the insurer has no duty to defend under the policy holding that an insurer had no duty to defend in the absence of any cause of action amounting to a potentially covered offense under the  insurance policy holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend