In Lamb v. Belt Casualty Co. (1935) 3 Cal. App. 2d 624, the insurer had undisputedly committed breach of duty to defend. Complaints based on the alleged negligent operations of the insured's truck and the policy obligated the insurer to defend such actions. The court considered the two potential outcomes of the underlying litigations and their ramifications on the liability of the insurer for breaching its duty to defend. If the underlying actions proceeded to trial, the court held, the insurer "is bound by the result of the litigation" provided it "had notice of the suit and an opportunity to control and manage it." (Ibid.) In other words, "the judgment recovered in such a case is the mode by which the insured proves to the insurer that the intrinsic character of the accident was such that he was liable for the consequences of it, and the judgment is conclusive evidence that the insured was liable, and to the extent of the amount of the judgment. " (Ibid.) The rule was different if the underlying case settled: "Where there is no trial and no judgment establishing the liability of the insured, but a settlement of the litigation has been made, the question whether the liability of the insured was one which the contract of insurance covered is still open, as is also the question as to the fact of liability and the extent thereof, and these questions may be litigated and determined in the action brought by the insured to recover the amount so paid in settlement. The settlement, or a judgment rendered upon a stipulation of such a settlement, becomes presumptive evidence only of the liability of the insured and the amount thereof, which presumption is subject to being overcome by proof on the part of the insurer. " (Lamb v. Belt Casualty Co., supra, 3 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 631-632.)