In In re Worcester Ins. Co. v. Bettenhauser, 95 N.Y.2d 185 [2000], the court acknowledges the difficulty in drawing the line between a lack of coverage in the first instance (requiring no disclaimer) and a lack of coverage based on an exclusion (requiring timely disclaimer). The court distinguishes situations, where coverage clauses at the outset condition liability so that the parties never establish a contractual relationship, from situations where a claim would be covered but for a specific policy exclusion. The contractual relationship that exists in the latter situation demands the insurer provide a timely disclaimer so as to not mislead the insured to his or her detriment. (See id., 95 N.Y.2d at 189.)