In Eigner v. Worthington (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 188, the insurer refused to defend its insured, having determined without any investigation other than comparing the complaint's allegations with policy coverage provisions, that there was no coverage. After a $ 240,000 judgment was entered against the insured, the insurer moved under section 473, subdivision (b) for relief from the judgment on the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. The insurer argued that had it known plaintiff's claims were covered, it would have defended its insured and obtained a more favorable result. (Eigner, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 191.) The issue in Eigner was "whether State Farm was on notice the plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress potentially included physical injury, or whether it was truly 'surprised' by the judgment." (Id. at p. 197.) The trial court denied the insurer any relief, explaining: " 'Remember the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial judge at the time may permit amendments to conform to proof right up to time of trial and even after the trial is over, . . . every insurance company knows that's the rule. The only way you can control the defense is to take over the defense. There isn't a defense lawyer worth his salt in the State of California . . . . who would tell the carrier it has no coverage and let it go. What you do in that case is defend under reservation. . . I have no -- no sympathy whatsoever with the carrier that leaves the insured out unprotected and then comes in later and says, "Oh, we didn't know that that might happen during the course of the litigation. And we weren't told about it and, therefore, we should set aside the judgment and start all over again." I don't think that's fair.' " (Id. at p. 194.) The Court explained: " 'It is by now a familiar principle that a liability insurer owes a broad duty to defend its insured against claims that create a potential for indemnity. . . . "The carrier must defend a suit which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy." . . . .The determination whether the insurer owes a duty to defend usually is made in the first instance by comparing the allegations of the complaint with the terms of the policy.' " However, " 'facts known to the insurer and extrinsic to the third party complaint can generate a duty to defend, even though the face of the complaint does not reflect a potential for liability under the policy . . . .' " (Ibid.) "An insurer contesting coverage 'may defend the action with a reservation of rights citation, it may file a separate declaratory relief action, . . . or it may simply deny the request and take its chance that the trier of fact in an action alleging bad faith breach of the contractual duty to defend will agree that no defense was owed.' When an insurer wrongfully refuses to defend, the insured is relieved of his or her obligation to allow the insurer to manage the litigation and may proceed in whatever manner is deemed appropriate." (Eigner, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 195-196.)