In York Ins. Group of Maine v. Lambert, 1999 ME 173, P4, 740 A.2d 984, the seven Law Court justices agreed that the Superior Court erred in considering discovery responses in determining the duty to defend. See York, 1999 ME 173, PP5, 9, 740 A.2d at 985-86. Four justices determined that York had a duty to defend. The three dissenting justices determined, however, that the complaint includes no allegations of emotional distress, bodily injury or property damage to generate a duty to defend under the York Insurance policy. The duty to defend is not derived from the face of the complaint but from speculation that proof of one of the economic torts alleged might 'carry the possibility of an award for emotional distress.' See id., 1999 ME 173, P11, 740 A.2d at 986.