TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE v. HUGO NEU SONS

Even if the complaint in the underlying action can be reasonably interpreted as alleging a claim for defamation, such a claim falls solely and entirely within the policy exclusion of knowingly false statements, the underlying complaint being restricted to charges of malicious and purposeful intent on defendants' part in a conspiratorial effort to drive the injured party out of the family business ( see, International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co., 35 NY2d 322, 325). A duty to defend cannot be triggered by defendants' mere speculation that additional facts showing reckless or negligent defamation may be developed at a later time ( see, Allstate Ins. Co. v Mugavero, 79 NY2d 153, 162-163; Warrensburg Bd. Paper Corp. v Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 143 AD2d 602, 603). We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them to be without merit.