Westport Ins. Co v. Bayer, 284 F.3d 489, 498 (3d Cir. 2002), for example, involved different exclusions and different underlying facts, and it turned on the application of the words “operate” and “control,” which do not appear in the Exclusion here. And in Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., v. Vicker, 265 Fed.Appx. 890, 891 (11th Cir. 2008), an (unpublished) Eleventh Circuit case, the Court found that because certain underlying claims fell outside the scope of two exclusions, the duty to defend the entire suit was triggered. Here, Defendants merely cite to these (and other) cases without explaining why any underlying claims would not be covered by Exclusion I(1).