(concurring specially):
I concur in the result solely because it is clear to me that the policy provision in question is not ambiguous. In my view the majority opinion is anchored *77to a fallacious interpretation of the law by the assertion:
“For reasons given in the Paul Revere opinion, supra, this date decided, we hold the Continental Casualty decision, also supra, to be inapposite.”
For reasons stated in my dissent in Paul Revere I consider the majority’s interpretation of the law of Texas as expounded in the Continental Casualty case to be in error.