In California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Warwick (1976) 17 Cal.3d 190, the state Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in a declaratory relief action in favor of plaintiff insurance carrier holding that the carrier had no duty to defend or indemnify husband in regard to the personal injury liability claims of his wife. While the insurance policy was in full force and effect, the wife sustained personal injuries resulting from an accident which occurred while she was a passenger in the insured vehicle driven by her husband. Bernice Warwick sued her husband Harry for personal injuries sustained in an accident which occurred while she was a passenger in a vehicle insured and driven by Harry. (Warwick, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 192.) The policy excluded coverage for liability for "bodily injury to any insured." (Id. at p. 193.) The policy defined an "insured" to include the named insured (Harry) and "his spouse, if a resident of the same household." (Id. at p. 192.) It was undisputed that at the time of the accident Bernice and Harry "were wife and husband residing in the same household." (Ibid.) The trial court declared that the insurer had no duty to defend Harry in Bernice's suit against him, and the Warwicks appealed. (Ibid.) On appeal, the Warwicks argued "that the exclusion of coverage for injury to 'any insured' can be interpreted reasonably as excluding only injuries sustained by the insured driver." (Warwick, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 194.) The Supreme Court rejected the Warwicks' interpretation. "Under this interpretation of the exclusion clause," the court stated, "any person insured under the policy would be entitled to indemnity if he sustained injury while riding as a passenger in the insured vehicle." (Ibid.) Rather, the court held, "In view of the popular and accepted meaning of the word 'any,' the term 'any insured' unmistakably refers to any person insured under the policy, whether such person is a named or unnamed insured, a driver or a passenger." (Id. at p. 195.) Thus, the court concluded that "the exclusion clause in the policy is susceptible to only one interpretation by the lay reader: that the insurer would not pay indemnity for injuries suffered by Bernice Warwick while she was riding as a passenger in the insured vehicle." (Ibid.) The policy contained a broadly worded liability coverage provision running to the benefit of the "insured," followed by definitions of "named insured," "insured" and "persons insured." The policy's exclusions read, in part: "Exclusions: This policy does not apply under Part I: ". . . . "(k) to liability to bodily injury to any insured." The court gave effect to the exclusion, holding "the term 'any insured' unmistakably refers to any person insured under the policy, whether such person is a named or unnamed insured . . ." ( id. at p. 195). Thus, it held the policy did not cover the husband's liability for injury to the wife.