Emphasizing the difference between the broad duty to defend and the narrower duty to indemnify, this decision holds that the defendant insurer breached its contractual duty to defend plaintiff homeowner against a suit for damages caused by two pit bull dogs that the complaint alleged were owned by the homeowner. The homeowners insurance policy contained an express exclusion of coverage for animals owned by or in the care, custody, and control of the insured. The insured informed the insurer that she did not own the pit bulls in question, and they weren’t in her care, custody, or control, but instead belonged to her boyfriend who was walking them when the injured the claimant. If the insured was correct, the exclusion didn’t apply, but she could not be held liable for the claimant’s injuries. Nevertheless, the insurer owed the homeowner a duty to defend against even frivolous claims that fell within the policy’s coverage–as this claim did, assuming plaintiff was correct about who owned and controlled the pit bulls.