The district court granted insurer’s motion to defense where insurer claimed it had no duty to defend case where the only potential claims are by putative class members until the class is certified. The district court was reversed on appeal. Applying Florida law, the Court held that the duty to defend is determined from the allegations in the complaint; the duty to defend arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring it within policy coverage. There is nothing qualitatively different under Florida law between the duty to defend individual claims and class claims. Further, the Court rejected Hartford’s claim that injuries were intentional and non-covered since Plaintiff alleged a scheme to defraud creditors and maximize profits. An injury is not excluded from coverage because the complaint may arguably allege that defendant’s conduct was intentional.