In 3250 Wilshire Boulevard Bldg. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 1277, plaintiff/lessor sued a tenant for breaches of the lease, including failure to pay rent. ( Id. at p. 1279, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399.) The tenant counterclaimed for damages for breach of the lease, and his answer contained similar allegations as defenses. (Ibid.) Lessor tendered the defense of the counterclaim to its business liability insurer, which accepted the tender and eventually settled the counterclaim by paying the tenant $ 50,000. (Ibid.) Lessor then demanded that the insurer provide it with " 'a defense to' the tenant's defenses." (Ibid.) The insurer refused. Lessor then prosecuted its claims against the tenant to a successful conclusion, incurring legal fees in the process. (Ibid.) Lessor then sued the insurer, alleging its "refusal to 'defend it' against the tenant's defenses was a breach of the insurance contract and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." (3250 Wilshire, supra, 39 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1279.) The insurer demurred, contending the liability policy did not obligate it to furnish legal services for lessor's prosecution of its action against the tenant, "because the tenant's defenses pleaded in that action had no potential to result in a judgment holding lessor liable to pay damages to the tenant." ( Id. at p. 1280.) The trial court agreed, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and dismissed lessor's action. (Ibid.) The reviewing court found the trial court's ruling was correct and affirmed. (3250 Wilshire, supra, 39 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1280.) Under the policy, the insurer had the duty to defend any suit seeking damages because of bodily injury, property damage, personal injury or advertising injury. (Ibid.) "This provision did not obligate the insurer to prosecute lessor's claims against the tenant, because neither the prosecution of lessor's prima facie case nor the defeat of the tenant's defenses thereto could be considered the defense of a suit seeking damages." (Ibid.)