Funk

This action was brought by the appellant as beneficiary under an accident policy issued to Ralph B. Funk by the appellee.

The policy contained the standard provisions required by the statutes of the State of California, chapter 614, § 3, Statutes 1917, p. 958. The first of said provisions reads :N

“This Policy includes the endorsements and attached papers if any, and contains the entire contract of insurance except as it may be modified by the Company’s classification of risks and premium rates in the event that the Insured is injured after having changed his occupation to one classified by the Company as more hazardous than that stated in the Policy, or while he is doing any act or thiijg pertaining to any occupation so classified, except ordinary duties about his residence or while engaged in recreation, in which event the Company will pay only such portion of the indemnities provided in the Policy as the premium paid would have purchased at the rate but within the limits so fixed by the Company for such more hazardous occupation.

“If the law of the state in which the Insured resides at the time this Policy" is issued requires that prior to its issue a statement of the…

(dissenting).

“My interpretation of the provision of the policy is this: The amount to be paid in case of injury or sickness may be reduced in two ways:

“First, when the insured in. fact changes his occupation to one more hazardous. In that event the benefit in case of injury or sickness is ipso facto reduced' to the proportionate amount the premium would purchase according to classification of risk. That is fair and just and reasonable.

“Second, amount of benefit is reduced when the insured, without changing his occupation to a more hazardous one, engages in some activity pertaining to a more hazardous occupation, and is injured or becomes sick. In that event, the benefit is reduced to the proportionate amount the premium would purchase according to classification of risk. That is fair and just and reasonable.

“If the insured, without changing occupation, engages in some more hazardous activity, the benefit is not reduced if injury or sickness occur, not in connection with the more hazardous activity, but in connection *41 with ordinary duties about the insured’s residence, or recreation. That is fair and just and reasonable.

“By relating the exception to the provision next…

(dissenting).

“I can neither discern any difficulties of construction in the paragraph of the insurance contract submitted for our consideration nor any semblance of justice in the judgment of this court. I therefore dissent.