With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". employment. However, this limitation/reduction does not apply to any liability incurred by you or a relative.”). Accordingly, the Court finds the exclusion of employer-owned cars in the definition of non-owned cars to be plain and clear. Accordingly, the contract excludes coverage for the tow truck that was driven by Marentes through language that is conspicuous, plain, and clear. The Court next considers whether, at any time, a potential for coverage existed under the State Farm Policy. 4. Potential for Coverage As described above, an insurer still has a duty to defend if, despite an eventual finding that an insurance policy does not provide coverage, the insurer is in possession of facts showing a potential for coverage. Montrose I, 6 Cal.4th at 296, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467, 861 P.2d 1153 (<HOLDING>); Buss, 16 Cal.4th at 47-48, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d

A: holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
B: holding that duty to defend ends when it is apparent there is no potential for coverage
C: holding that where claims are cast wholly within policy exclusion there is no duty to defend
D: holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend
B.