But the courts of Louisiana have repeatedly upheld exclusionary provisions in automobile liability policies and declared that it is not against the public policy of the State of Louisiana for an insurer to issue an insurance policy restricting coverage by means of exclusionary provisions. See, e.g., Phillips v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 193 La. 314, 190 So. 565 (1939); McCoy v. Royal Indem. Co., 174 So.2d 260 (La.Ct.App. 1965); Weems v. International Auto. Ins. Exch., 159 So.2d 321 (La.Ct.App. 1963); Johnson v. Universal Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 124 So.2d 580 (La.Ct.App. 1960); Kennedy v. Audubon Ins. Co., 82 So.2d 91 (La.Ct.App. 1955). On the basis of these authorities the court below concluded that Louisiana public policy does not require that every automobile liability insurance policy contain an omnibus clause, and held that the policy issued by Mid-South does not contravene Louisiana public policy and is valid as written.
It is an established principle of our jurisprudence that the insurer and the insured may agree to limit liability in any manner, in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary. See Johnson v. Universal Automobile Insurance Association, La. App., 124 So.2d 580; Weems v. International Automobile Insurance Exchange, La. App., 159 So.2d 321; and McCoy v. Royal Indemnity Company, La. App., 174 So.2d 260. Counsel for Egano and his insurers finally argue that even if State Farm's exclusionary clause is a valid defense to Mrs. Guy's claim, this insurer is still liable to them for contribution.