What about insurance code 533 and and the intentional acts exclusion. These don't "prohibit" an insurance company to defend intentional torts but they seem to not obligate an insurance company from doing so, and apparently in California most insurance companies are not inclined to defend intentional torts, although perhaps coverage for that may be obtained, but in my case it seems like the landlord does not have coverage for that.
A breach of the implied warranty of habitability is not an intentional tort. As you stated in your post, it may be done negligently or recklessly. In fact, the term "warranty" implies that the person warranting is liable for a breach regardless of the wrongfulness of his conduct.
Sorry. I inderstand. I put more information in my comment to Mr. Chen's answer. Basically, under my complaint I claim very littl e that the defendant's insurance would defend from, except maybe $350, but I do make claims for much higher damages for intentional acts. However, the defendant landlord in her cross-complaint falsely claims I destroyed property, perhaps $20,000, which I didn't do, so she can claim it and have the insurance company try to go after me for that, in which case the insurance company would not be defending but "prosecuting" her cross-complaint based on her false claims or insurance fraud. I know it sounds unusual, by that's what I think the landlord's scenario is. If that is the case, the insurance company, by "prosecuting" her case has by default to also defend her from my numerous claims of intentional torts.