General Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stevens

ROSS, PJ.

It is contended that the judgment is erroneous, for the reason that Ryan was not insured and that Stevens can have no greater rights than Ryan had against the Insurance Company. As to the latter proposition, there can be no doubt.

The question then is: — Was Ryan insured?

The policy of insurance contained the following clause as an endorsement:

“In consideration of the rates at which this policy is written, it is hereby understood and agreed that this policy is extended to indemnify the operator of any car insured under the within policy, against loss on account of the liability imposed…