In Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302, the Court discussed the duty to defend: "At issue here is whether the insurer had a duty to defend its insured in an action brought by a third party. To prevail in an action seeking declaratory relief on the question of the duty to defend, 'the insured must prove the existence of a potential for coverage, while the insurer must establish the absence of any such potential. In other words, the insured need only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage; the insurer must prove it cannot.' The duty to defend exists if the insurer 'becomes aware of, or if the third party lawsuit pleads, facts giving rise to the potential for coverage under the insuring agreement.' We look first to the terms of the policy." (Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 308.) The Court also noted that because the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, a determination an insurer did not have a duty to defend would be dispositive of a claim it had a duty to indemnify. (Id., at p. 308, fn. 1.) In Delgado, the injured party argued that because the insured's assault and battery was motivated by an unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, the act fell within the policy's definition of "an accident," because from the perspective of the injured party, the assault was unexpected and unforeseen because of the provocative act by the injured party. (Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 311, 314.) The Court rejected that argument, noting, among other things, that "an injury-producing event is not an 'accident' within the policy's coverage language when all of the acts, the manner in which they were done, and the objective accomplished occurred as intended by the actor" and that an insured's mistake of law or fact could not transform a knowingly and purposefully inflicted harm into an accidental injury. (Id., at pp. 311-312.) The Court concluded "an insured's unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense does not turn the resulting purposeful and intentional act of assault and battery into 'an accident' within the policy's coverage clause." (Id., at p. 317.)