The applicant property manager sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend it in an underlying slip-and-fall action.
The applicant was an additional insured on a commercial general liability policy obtained by a floor mat supplier.
The court found no duty to defend, as the underlying statement of claim alleged independent negligence against the applicant regarding its property management duties, rather than liability arising solely out of the operations of the floor mat supplier.
The court also held that even if a duty to defend existed, the applicant would not be entitled to appoint independent counsel at the insurer's expense, as there was no reasonable apprehension of a conflict of interest.