[DiogenesLamp]

You don’t understand. For an insurance company to defend its insured, there FIRST must be coverage — or potential coverage — under the policy. That means the cause of action (the claim) must fall within the policy’s insuring agreement. If it doesn’t, and there’s no question it doesn’t, the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify, and will issue a coverage disclaimer.

I believe I understand that just fine, and I've said the same thing to you already using different words.

If there is potential coverage, the insurer will issue the policyholder a reservation of rights, which means the insurer will provide for a defense, but if evidence comes in that would show that coverage would not apply, then the insurer can issue a coverage disclaimer and withdraw from providing a defense.

From my perspective, it sounds to me like you are claiming the insurance company can determine guilt or innocence, and I disagree that the decisions of an insurance company establish a fact of guilt.

I've seen actual lawyers at "Legal Insurrection" argue that the McMichaels had a legitimate "citizens arrest" claim as well as a legitimate "self defense" claim. They say the Judge made an error in both his interpretation of the Georgia statute, and in his instructions to the jury.

But what I am getting from you is that we should leave such decisions up to the insurance company, and that doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think what the Insurance company does or does not do, establishes "color of law".

[ought-six]

“I don’t think what the Insurance company does or does not do, establishes “color of law”.”

An insurance company has absolutely nothing to do with establishing color of law; it has no say in the matter. Color of law is determined by the facts and the law, neither of which an insurer can do anything about, but accept it.