The contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant did not indemnify the plaintiff against the liability imposed on him, and the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition and in dismissing the action.

C. P. Vaughan, doing business as Roswell Motor Company, sued Home Indemnity Company for an alleged breach of an insurance contract. The plaintiff was in the garage and automobile repair business. He had an insurance policy with the defendant, indemnifying him against certain liabilities that could arise out of the operation of the business. On about May 10, 1949, the plaintiff had in his garage for the purpose of repairs a customer's automobile. While welding was being done on the under-side of the automobile, the automobile in some manner caught fire and was consumed. The owner of the automobile sued the plaintiff for the loss of the automobile and recovered. Upon being sued the plaintiff notified the defendant of the suit and requested that it defend. The defendant denied that such a case was covered by its policy and would not defend or indemnify, the result of which was this action. The court sustained a general demurrer to the petition and dismissed the action, and the plaintiff excepted.

Exclusion (i) did not render the insuring clause inoperative so as to bring the case under the ruling in Clay v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 97 Ga. 44 (25 S. E. 417). The plaintiff was still covered as to any liability of the plaintiff for damage to property arising out of the operation of his business, except property "owned by, rented to, in charge of, or transported by the insured." While it can be ascertained just what coverage the policy afforded the insured by a minute examination of the terms thereof (and such an examination is necessary to discover just what coverage the policy afforded), the insurer, in keeping with good practice, should more clearly define in the insuring clause of its policies what coverage the insured has under the contract.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition and in dismissing the action.

Judgment affirmed. Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.