Court Opinion

ID: 9858356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:20:56.262401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:58.231360
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING Ed. F. McFaddxN,. Associate Justice. We are asked by appellant to clarify our opinion in regard to the insurance coverage. Appellant says that some language in the opinion leaves the impression that appellant was held liable under the policy here involved as though it were a Workmen’s Compensation policy. We did not intend for the opinion to leave any such impression. The policy involved in this ease was an automobile liability policy; and Miss Brashears recovered just as though she was a third person entirely unemployed by the library. The matter of any exclusion applying because Miss Bra,shears was an employee of the library, was not an issue and therefore was not determined by the opinion. Re-hearing denied.