Treloar

Respondent in his petition for a rehearing claims that the court has construed the contract of indemnity in favor of the insurer rather than the insured, whereas it *Page 170 is the latter that should be favored. We are aware of the rule that justly requires the courts to resolve doubtful and obscure provisions so as to give the fullest protection possible to the interests of the insured, and we are in accord with that policy, but it seems to us that to support the position of respondent in this case would require us to do violence to the plain terms of the contract which the parties have deliberately chosen. Petitioner, with some degree of acerbity, complains because we failed to notice specifically some of the cases cited by respondent, especially Rodgers v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co., 33 Cal.App. 70 , [ 164 P. 1115 ]. Of course, there must be some limit to an opinion, and it is not generally supposed that the appellate courts in that respect usually err upon the side of brevity. The cases cited by respondent, though, were examined, and we thought our reference to them was sufficient for the purpose of the case in expressing our views as to the merits of the controversy. As to…

Plaintiff was injured in consequence of being struck by a vehicle driven by said E. P. Hannon, of the said firm. The action against said copartnership and the individual members thereof was based upon the claim of negligence in producing said accident and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding to that effect. The claim as to the casualty company's liability grows out of the execution by said company of an indemnity insurance policy issued to said Keil Hannon. The said policy provides: "Pacific Coast Casualty Company, of San Francisco, California, hereinafter called the Company hereby insure — Keil Hannon — of the County of Sacramento State of California hereinafter called the Assured, *Page 161 "Against loss and expense arising from claims upon the Assured for damages on account of bodily injuries accidentally suffered or alleged to have been suffered during the period of this policy by any person, and caused by the horses or vehicles in his service and use thereof, while in charge of the Assured, or his employees." Said policy also provides that "no action shall lie against this company for any loss or expense under this policy unless it shall be brought…