September 6, 1908, the iEtna Life In-
surance Company executed ail accident policy to the Curtis & Gаrtside Company, by which it insured the latter against loss or expense arising or resulting from claims upon the assured for damages, on account of bodily injuries suffered by its employees on account of the operation of its business as a manufacturer of sashes and doors at Oklahoma City, Oklá. On the 19th day of October following, one James Pribyl, an employee of-the assured, received injuries to his person, on account of which suit was afterwards brought against his employer, the manufacturing company. March 19, 1910, in a trial had in the superior court of Oklаhoma 'county, judgment was awarded in favor of Pribyl and against the manufacturing company in the sum of $-5,000. On appeal to this court, the judgment of the trial court v/as affirmed on July 22, 1913.
Curtis & Gartside Co. v. Pribyl,
The insurer “does hereby insure * * * against loss or expense arising or resulting from claims upon the *472 ins.ured for damages on account of bodily injuries or death accidentally suffered by reason of the opеration of the trade or business described herein.”
And it also contains certain conditions, including the following:
“ (A) The company’s liability for loss on account of an accident resulting in bоdily injuries to or in the death of one person is limited to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) ; and subject to the same limit for each person, the company’s total liability for loss on account of any one accident resulting in bodily injuries to or in the death of more than one person, is limited to ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). The company will, however, as provided in conditions D and E herеof, pay the expense of litigation in addition to the sum herein limited, provided, that if the company shall elect to pay the assured the sum as herein limited, it shall not be liable for furthеr expenses of litigation after such payment shall have been made.”
Other provisions, lettered C, D, and E, of the policy, provided that upon the occurrence of an аccident the assured should give immediate written notice thereof, with fullest information obtainable, to the home office of the company, or its duly authorized agent, and that if a сlaim was made on account of such accident the assured should give like notice thereof with full particulars; and, further, that the assured should at all times render the company аll cooperation and assistance in its power; that if thereafter any suit was brought against the insured to enforce a claim for damages on account of an acсident covered by the policy, the assured should immediately forward to the company’s home office every summons or other process, immediately after service therеof; and that the company would, at its own cost, defend such suit in thé name and behalf of the assured, unless it should elect to settle the same or pay the assured the indemnity provided for in *473 the policy; that the assured, whenever requested, hy the company, should aid in effecting settlement, securing information and evidence, "or attendance of witnesses, and prosеcuting appeals, but should not voluntarily assume any liability, or interfere in any negotiations for settlement, or in any legal proceedings, or incur any expense, or settle any clаim, except at its own cost, without the written consent of the insurer previously given, except under certain circumstances not involved in the present action. Section F of thе conditions, to which the policy was subject, provided:
“No action shall lie against the company to recover for any loss or expenses under this policy, unless it shall be brought by the assured for - loss or expense actually sustained and paid in money by him after actual trial of the issue, nor unless such action is brought within 96 days after payment of such loss or expеnse.”
In construing the policy, proper consideration must be given to all of its provisions. The clause of the policy insuring against’ loss or expense arising or resulting from the claims upon the assured for damages, construed in connection with the condition that no action should lie against the company to recover for any loss or expense under thе policy, unless it should be brought by the assured for loss or expense actually sustained and paid in money by him after trial, clearly constitutes the policy one of indemnity, and not of liability merely. It was not because of the injury to Pribyl, or of the action by him against'the assured, that the insurer became liable on its policy. It was the fact that the assured had actually paid thе judgment. Until the assured paid in money the judgment rendered against it, no claim, cognizable in a court of law, accrued to it under the terms of the policy. Not until such time had a loss acсrued to the assured, though
*474
its liability was fixed by the final judgment. The payment of the judgment was a condition precedent to plaintiff’s cause of action, and until that was done it was not damni-fied within thе meaning of the policy; hence was not entitled to be indemnified. Our views find support in many reported cases, including:
American Employers’ Liability Ins. Co. v. Fordyce,
The contract of insurance was not obtained by the assured fоr the benefit of its employees, but for its own benefit exclusively; to reimburse it for any sum, within the limits fixed, that said company might be obliged to pay on account of injuries sustained by an employеe.
Frye v. Bath Gas & Elec. Co.,
The liability of the insurance company under the policy must be measured by its terms. Under the policy the maximum recovery on account of an accident resulting in bodily injuries to, оr in the death of, one person, was $5,000. There was, however, a provision that if the insurer elected, on behalf of the assured, to contest a recovery on the part of thе injured employee, or those standing' in his right, the insured would pay “the expense of litigation” in addition to the maximum amount recoverable on the policy. It will be remembered that the judgmеnt was for $5,000, and that this, together with the expense of litigation, so far as the same involved court costs, was promptly
*475
paid. In such circumstances it would seem that the insurer has fully dischargеd its obligations. “Expense of litigation,” as commonly understood, does' not include interest, though interest may accumulate as the result of the litigation. An agreement to pay the “exрense or cost of making a defense” to an action at law, in the common and well understood acceptance of the term, fairly and reasonably contemplates the attorney fees, the court costs, stenographer fees, and other expenditures necessary and directly required to present the defense, and does not includе the collateral and indirect results of doing so.
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Omaha El. L. & P. Co.,
While there is some conflict in the "authorities, as to the right of the assured to recover interest pending a decision on apрeal, the great weight of.authority we believe to be against the rule contended for, as shown by the. following cases:
Stephens v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co.,
The insurance company having paid the maximum sum for which it was liable, and having in the policy reserved the right to contest a recovery by the injured employee, it is not liable on account of interest accruing, priоr to payment of the judgment by the assured.
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Peppard,
The right of the assured to recover on its policy of indemnity not attaching until payment of the judgment, and there being no provision of the policy, fairly construed, allowing a recovery for interest prior to such time, it follows that the judgment of the trial court, sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, should be and is sustained.