concurring specially.
I concur, but solely on the ground that there should be no reasonable expectation of coverage, or of defense, under a homeowner’s policy, where the suit against the insured is based on personal injuries inflicted in an altercation in a public place far removed from the place to which the insurance applies. Aside from this, I would dissent from the majority opinion and allow recovery for reasons well stated in Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co., 65 Cal.2d 263, 54 Cal.Rptr. 104, 419 P.2d 168 (1966). In that case recovery was allowed under facts indistinguishable from the case before us, except that the altercation was a result of a near-collision of automobiles and the policy provisions were contained in an automobile policy, permitting a reasonable expectation of coverage.
It follows that I decline to join in any holdings or inferences: (1) that the language of the complaint is determinative of liability (since complaints may be amended before, during, or after trial and are often not truly descriptive of the actual facts *41which can be determined only after investigation; 1 (2) that the duty to defend is coextensive with liability of the insurance company to pay damages (since the duty to pay damages may not be certain until after trial, while the duty to defend is a separate undertaking pre-existing trial and arises even if the complaint is false or fraudulent); or (3) that a judgment creditor cannot recover on the basis of the failure of an insurance company to defend, or pay damages assessed against, its insured, the judgment debtor.
. I would therefore overrule the contrary ng in Kyllo v. Northland Chemical Co., 209 N.W.2d 629 (N.D.1973),