In Great S. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 25 S.W.2d 1093, 1097 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1930, holding approved), the policy at issue provided for a total disability payment if an insured's injuries rendered him "'permanently, continuously and wholly prevented from performing any work for compensation or profit or from following any gainful occupation."' 25 S.W.2d at 1097. First, the Court observe the substantial differences between the policy language in Johnson and this case. The Johnson policy coverage hinged on an insured's ability to perform work in any occupation, and the Provident policy concerns the insured's occupation. Thus, the Johnson policy's broader language, taken literally, precluded total disability coverage if an insured was able to perform "'any work for compensation or profit.., from.., any gainful occupation."' Id. The court in Johnson limited the breadth of the policy at issue, citing the reasoning in Bryant, by stating that total disability "does not mean absolute physical disability of the insured to transact any kind of business pertaining to his occupation, but exists if he is unable to do any substantial portion of the work connected therewith." Id. Apparently, the court adopted this construction to avoid interpreting the policy as requiring a virtual impossibility, noting that "'it would scarcely happen that one could live and bring himself within the literal language of the contract."' Id. (quoting Hefner v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N. Y., 110 Tex. 596, 607, 222 S.W. 966 (1920)). The Johnson Court also addressed the policy language "gainful occupation" - a term not implicated in this case - and eventually concluded that a fact issue existed as to whether a once successful merchant who lost a leg in a shotgun accident was entitled to receive benefits for total disability even though he was able to function as a justice of the peace. Id.