One of the issues was whether Endorsement 112, which would have excluded coverage, was properly added to the insurance policy. In a previous decision the court had held that pending the resolution of that factual question, the insurer, ANI, had a duty to defend. On a motion to reconsider, to his credit Judge Stearns reversed that ruling:
This ruling put the cart before the horse by conflating the duty to defend with the existence of coverage in the first place. Before a court can determine whether a policy imparts a duty to defend, an applicable policy must be identified.