In Quan v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 583, the Second Appellate District contemplated a similar issue after a trial court sustained an insurance company's demurrer to an insured's complaint alleging causes of action for bad faith. (Quan, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 586-587.) The underlying complaint alleged the insured assaulted and raped the claimant, and also alleged causes of action for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at p. 593.) The Quan court noted "it is common to hear the argument that if the underlying complaint alleges negligence, there must be a duty to defend. This is not necessarily true. The duty to defend depends upon the coverage provided by the policy--the 'nature and kind of risk covered'--which in turn depends upon the wording of the coverage clauses." (Quan, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 595.) The Quan court determined the insurance policy's coverage of bodily injuries was restricted to damages arising from an "occurrence," which was defined as an "accident." (Ibid.) The court further explained that "to avoid the consequences of the conclusion that no 'accident' has been alleged, the insured argues he might be found merely 'negligent,' or may be found to have mistakenly believed the claimant had 'consented.'" (Id. at p. 596.) The Second Appellate District rejected this argument, noting there was a "'misapprehension that all claims for negligence must at least potentially come within the policy and therefore give rise to a duty to defend. That is not so. ... "Negligent" and "accidental" are not synonymous ... .'" (Quan, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 596.)