Thornton v. Personal Service Insurance

Herbert, J.,

dissenting. Since the law is as the majority says, there was no need for appellant, in exchange for money paid to it by Miller, to promise to defend “any suit against [Miller] * * * even if such suit is groundless, false or fraudulent.” However, such a bargain was struck between appellant and appellees’ assignor and I see no justification for ignoring that fact. I would affirm.

'■ Celebrezzh, J., concurs in the-' foregoing dissenting opinion.