United States Casualty Co. v. Bliss

*520OPINION

By HORNBECK, PJ.

A discussion of both of these questions no doubt would be interesting and inferential^ helpful', and they are considered in a .most effective manner in the brief of plaintiff in errbr. However, we believe the important question presented is narrower, namely, was'the “Company” bound by the language of the Bliss policy to defend him so far as was necessary on the petition filed by Richardson for damages for personal injuries? It is the theory of counsel for the “Company” that unless the “Company” was bound under its policy to indemnify Bliss for legal liability on any…