Votaw v. Farmers A. Inter-Ins. Exch. , 15 Cal.2d 24 (1940)

LexRoll.com > LexRoll (CA) > California Supreme Court > 1940 > Votaw v. Farmers A. Inter-Ins. Exch. , 15 Cal.2d 24 (1940)

Votaw?v.?Farmers?A.?Inter-Ins.?Exch.?,?15?Cal.2d?24

[Sac.?No.?5143.?In?Bank.?January?8,?1940.]

E.?VOTAW,?Respondent,?v.?FARMERS?AUTOMOBILE?INTER-INSURANCE?EXCHANGE?et?al.,?Appellants.

COUNSEL

James?W.?Hughes?and?J.?Joseph?Sullivan?for?Appellants.?[15?Cal.2d?25]

Lasher?B.?Gallagher,?W.?H.?Stammer,?Galen?McKnight,?Morgan?J.?Doyle,?J.?Joseph?Sullivan,?Bronson,?Bronson?&
McKinnon,?Finlayson,?Bennett?&?Morrow?and?Henry?L.?Knoop,?as?Amici?Curiae,?on?Behalf?of?Appellants.

Calvert?Snyder,?Ralph?McGee,?Harold?Raines?and?T.?P.?Wittschen?for?Respondent.

OPINION

SHENK,?J.

The?defendants?have?appealed?from?an?adverse?judgment?in?an?action?on?an?insurance?policy.

The?plaintiff,?as?the?owner?of?an?automobile,?was?insured?against?so-?called?public?liability?by?a?policy?issued?February?6,?1931.?The?defendant?insurance?companies?were?the?insurers.?After?the?policy?was?issued?the?plaintiff?sold?the?automobile?to?one?Kin?on?an?oral?contract?of?conditional?sale?under?which?Kin?paid?a?portion?of?the?purchase?price?and?received?possession?of?the?car.?The?plaintiff?retained?both?the?certificate?of?ownership?and?the?certificate?of?registration?which?had?been?issued?to?him?pursuant?to?the?California?Vehicle?Act.?(Stats.?1923,?p.?517,?as?amended.)?Neither?the?plaintiff?nor?Kin?made?a?report?of?the?sale?to?the?department?of?motor?vehicles,?as?required?by?the?statute.?Such?was?the?status?of?the?several?parties?on?June?3,?1933,?when?the?automobile,?in?the?possession?of?and?being?operated?by?Kin,?caused?personal?injuries?to?one?Bunch,?who?sued?the?plaintiff?and?Kin?for?damages?for?alleged?negligent?operation?of?the?car.?Judgment?was?rendered?against?Kin?in?the?sum?of?$4,341.27?and?in?favor?of?Mr.?Votaw.?On?appeal?by?the?plaintiff?therein?Mr.?Votaw?was?held?to?be?equally?liable?in?that?amount?on?the?ground?that?no?notice?of?the?sale?had?been?given?as?required?by?law?and?that?Mr.?Votaw?continued?to?be?liable?for?injuries?to?a?third?person?under?the?provisions?of?section?1714?1/4?of?the?Civil?Code.?Judgment?was?directed?accordingly.?(Bunch?v.?Kin,?2?Cal.App.2d?81?[37?PaCal.2d?744].)?Upon?the?issuance?of?execution,?Mr.?Votaw?satisfied?the?judgment?and?brought?the?present?action?to?recover?the?amount?paid?by?him.

By?the?terms?of?the?policy?as?originally?issued?the?defendants?herein?were?relieved?from?liability?”if?the?interest?in?the?automobile?described?herein?is?at?any?time?other?than?sole?and?unconditional?ownership”.?The?defendants?contend?[15?Cal.2d?26]?that?upon?the?sale?to?Kin?the?insured?ceased?to?possess?the?ownership?required?by?the?provisions?of?the?policy.?Much?argument?is?addressed?to?that?point,?but?it?is?unnecessary?to?consider?it?because?of?our?conclusion?that?the?judgment?in?any?event?should?be?affirmed.

Prior?to?the?accident?involved?in?Bunch?v.?Kin,?supra,?the?defendants?sent?to?Mr.?Votaw?a?rider?having?the?heading?”Extended?Coverage?(omnibus?clause)”,?to?be?attached?to?and?to?become?a?part?of?the?policy.?The?pertinent?portions?of?that?rider?read?as?follows:

“It?is?made?a?condition?of?the?policy?to?which?this?endorsement?is?attached?that,?beginning?at?noon,?standard?time,?January?1,?1933,?at?the?address?of?the?named?insured?stated?herein,?the?insurance?granted?to?the?named?insured?under?Part?II?relating?to?Property?Damage?and?Public?Liability?and?subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy,?shall?also?inure?to?the?benefit?of?any?person?or?persons?while?riding?in?or?legally?operating?the?automobile?described?herein,?and?to?any?person,?firm?or?corporation?legally?responsible?for?the?operation?thereof,?provided?such?use?or?operation?is?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured.”

In?transmitting?the?foregoing?endorsement?or?omnibus?clause?the?defendants?addressed?a?letter?to?Mr.?Votaw?in?which?it?was?stated:

“We?are?enclosing?an?endorsement?form?which?you?will?please?attach?to?your?policy.?It?is?for?the?purpose?of?broadening?the?terms?of?the?same?to?meet?present?automobile?driving?conditions.?This?endorsement?provides?for?the?extension?of?insurance?under?your?policy?to?others?who?may?be?driving?your?car?(with?your?permission),?and?gives?to?them?all?the?protection?afforded?you?by?your?policy.?It?also?provides?for?compliance?with?the?Owners?Responsibility?Laws?of?the?various?states?in?which?the?Exchange?operates?or?in?which?you?may?be?traveling?at?the?time?of?an?accident?involving?your?insured?car.?There?will?be?no?additional?charge?for?the?extension?of?this?coverage.?In?granting?the?extension?of?this?coverage?the?Governing?Board?of?the?Exchange?is?keeping?to?the?policy?of?providing?its?members?with?adequate?coverage?to?meet?the?various?changes?in?laws?and?conditions?affecting?the?driving?of?automobiles.”

It?is?the?contention?of?the?defendants?that?the?provisions?of?the?rider?had?no?effect?upon?the?coverage?of?the?[15?Cal.2d?27]?original?policy?for?the?reason?that?the?terms?of?the?rider?were?to?be?”subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy”,?including?the?sale?and?unconditional?ownership?clause.

The?plaintiff?contends?that?the?purpose?of?the?rider?was?fairly?expressed?by?the?letter?of?the?defendants?in?transmitting?it;?that?such?purpose?was?to?”broaden?the?terms”?of?the?policy?”to?meet?present?day?driving?conditions”,?and?to?make?the?”endorsement”?cover?”Owners?Responsibility?Laws?of?the?various?states?in?which?the?Exchange?operates”,?and?that?this?”extension?of?coverage”?was?to?furnish?the?insured?with?protection?”to?meet?the?various?changes?in?laws?and?conditions?affecting?the?driving?of?automobiles”.

[1]?The?letter?of?transmittal?undoubtedly?described?the?purpose?and?effect?of?the?omnibus?clause?correctly,?at?least?in?so?far?as?it?applies?to?the?facts?in?this?case.?By?its?terms?the?rider?was?intended?to?protect?the?insured?in?the?event?that?he?be?held?liable?under?any?”Owners?Responsibility?Laws”?of?the?states?in?which?the?defendants?operated,?which?would?include?this?state.?If?the?language?of?the?rider?did?not?have?that?effect,?it?was?meaningless.

It?should?be?noted?that?section?1714?1/4?of?the?Civil?Code?had?recently?been?enacted?(1929)?and?was,?very?significantly,?an?”Owners?Responsibility?Law”,?as?reasonably?contemplated?by?the?omnibus?clause.?That?section?made?it?possible?to?impose?liability?by?reason?of?ownership?of?the?mere?legal?title?of?the?car?provided?at?the?time?of?the?injury?the?car?was?being?operated?with?the?consent?of?such?owner.?There?can?be?no?doubt?that?at?the?time?of?the?accident?the?automobile?in?question?was?being?operated?by?Kin?with?the?consent?of?the?plaintiff.?(Sly?v.?American?Indemnity?Co.,?127?Cal.App.?202?[15?PaCal.2d?522]),?and?it?had?been?established?by?final?judgment?that?the?plaintiff?was?”legally?responsible”?for?such?operation,?notwithstanding?the?fact?that?he?had?contracted?to?sell?it?and?had?delivered?it?to?Kin.

[2]?The?effect?of?the?omnibus?clause?was?to?modify?in?favor?of?the?insured?the?terms?of?the?original?policy.?Instances?where?this?result?has?been?declared?are?cited?in?the?briefs.?For?example,?the?case?of?Firkins?v.?Zurich?General?A.?&?L.?Ins.?Co.,?111?Cal.App.?655?[295?P.?1051],?involved?the?public?liability?provisions?of?a?policy?which?[15?Cal.2d?28]?provided?that?said?policy?should?not?cover?”in?respect?of?any?automobile?…?while?driven?or?manipulated?by?any?person?…?under?sixteen?years?of?age?in?any?event”.?An?endorsement?attached?to?the?policy?provided:?”The?policy?to?which?this?endorsement?is?attached?is?hereby?extended?to?apply?to?any?person?…?legally?responsible?for?the?operation?thereof,?provided?such?use?or?operation?is?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured,?or?if?the?named?assured?is?an?individual,?with?the?permission?of?an?adult?member?of?the?named?assured’s?household?…”?The?accident?occurred?while?the?car?was?being?operated,?with?the?permission?of?the?insured,?by?his?fourteen-year-old?son.?The?insurance?company?denied?liability?because?of?the?age?of?the?driver.?In?passing?upon?the?effect?of?the?rider?the?court?said:?”There?appears?to?be?no?difficulty?in?reconciling?the?language?of?the?policy?with?that?of?the?rider?on?the?subject?of?liability?on?account?of?the?age?of?the?chauffeur.?It?may?be?reasonably?construed?to?mean?that?the?surety?company?shall?not?be?liable?upon?the?policy?’while?[the?machine?was]?driven?or?manipulated?by?any?person?…?under?sixteen?years?of?age’?unless?such?minor?was?operating?the?car?’with?the?permission?of?an?adult?member?of?the?assured’s?household’,?in?which?event?the?company?is?liable.?To?construe?the?language?of?this?instrument?otherwise?would?defeat?the?apparent?intent?of?the?parties?and?render?the?quoted?language?of?the?rider?valueless.”?A?like?result?was?reached?in?Swift?v.?Zurich?General?A.?&?L.?Ins.?Co.,?112?Cal.App.?709?[297?P.?578],?where?it?was?held?that?a?policy?providing?that?coverage?should?not?apply?when?the?car?was?being?operated?by?a?person?under?sixteen?years?of?age?was?superseded?by?a?rider?attached?to?the?policy?which?provided?that?the?coverage?was?extended?to?apply?to?any?person?legally?responsible?for?the?operation?of?the?car?with?the?owner’s?consent.

[3]?It?must?be?conceded?that?the?omnibus?clause?here?under?consideration,?together?with?the?letter?of?transmittal,?rendered?the?contract?of?insurance?as?a?whole?ambiguous?and?consequently?subject?to?construction,?and?that?this?ambiguity?was?caused?by?the?insurer.?Any?fair?and?reasonable?interpretation?of?the?original?contract?as?modified?by?the?rider?leads?to?the?conclusion?that?the?insured?would?be?protected?against?any?change?in?the?laws?of?the?state?with?reference?to?”Owners?Responsibility”,?such?as?the?enactment?of?section?[15?Cal.2d?29]?1714?1/4?of?the?Civil?Code,?especially?when?considered?in?connection?with?sections?45?and?45?3/4?of?the?California?Vehicle?Act?in?force?at?the?time?of?the?accident.?Furthermore,?any?doubts?arising?by?reason?of?ambiguities?caused?by?the?insurer?must,?under?familiar?rules?of?construction?of?insurance?contracts,?be?resolved?in?favor?of?the?insured.

The?judgment?is?affirmed.

Houser,?J.,?Gibson,?J.,?and?Waste,?C.J.,?concurred.

Carter,?J.,?deeming?himself?disqualified,?did?not?participate.

EDMONDS,?J.,

Dissenting.

In?my?judgment,?the?decision?holding?the?insurer?liable?is?based?upon?an?erroneous?construction?of?the?contract?between?the?parties.?Moreover,?it?passes?over,?as?unnecessary?for?determination,?the?question?whether?the?named?insured?was?the?sole?and?unconditional?owner?of?the?automobile?at?the?time?of?the?accident?which?occasioned?the?present?litigation.?In?effect,?the?court?holds?that?regardless?of?the?insurer’s?contract?that?it?will?pay?the?named?insured’s?obligations?only?so?long?as?the?specified?ownership?continues,?it?is?liable?under?a?supplemental?agreement?which?was?made?subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy.

The?endorsement?provides?that?”the?insurance?granted?to?the?named?insured?…?and?subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy?shall?also?inure?to?the?benefit?of?any?person?or?persons?while?riding?in?or?legally?operating?the?automobile?described?herein?and?to?any?person,?firm?or?corporation?legally?responsible?for?the?operation?thereof,?provided?such?use?or?operation?is?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured”.?By?this?addition?to?the?policy?the?insurer?extended?the?original?coverage?to?include?persons?other?than?the?insured;?that?is?to?say,?so?long?as?the?policy?was?in?effect?”and?subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations”?of?the?contract,?the?insurer?agreed?to?indemnify?any?third?person?driving?the?automobile?or?responsible?for?its?operation?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured.?As?stated?by?the?appellant?in?its?letter?transmitting?the?endorsement,?it?”provides?for?the?extension?of?insurance?under?your?policy?to?others?who?may?be?[15?Cal.2d?30]?driving?your?car?(with?your?permission)?and?gives?to?them?all?the?protection?afforded?you?by?your?policy”.

The?two?insuring?agreements?are?separate?and?distinct?provisions?embodied?in?the?one?contract.?By?the?policy?as?originally?written?the?named?insured?was?the?only?person?insured?against?loss.?Under?the?endorsement?the?insurance?was?extended?to?protect?any?unnamed?person?using?the?automobile?or?being?responsible?for?its?operation?under?specific?conditions.?It?provided?that?the?insurance?granted?to?the?named?insured?should?also?”inure?to?the?benefit?of”?certain?other?persons,?or,?in?other?words,?that?such?insurance?should?devolve?by?law?as?a?right?and?be?available?to?anyone?who?came?within?the?specific?conditions.?But?it?gave?the?named?insured?no?rights?which?he?did?not?have?before?and?the?added?protection?was?specifically?made?”subject?to?all?the?terms,?conditions?and?limitations?of?the?policy”.

It?is?this?provision?of?the?omnibus?clause?which?distinguishes?the?present?case?from?Firkins?v.?Zurich?General?Acc.?&?L.?Co.,?111?Cal.App.?655?[295?P.?1051].?There?was?no?dispute?presented?by?that?case?concerning?who?was?insured?at?the?time?of?the?accident,?but?the?controversy?was?whether?the?judgment?creditor?of?the?named?insured?could?recover?against?the?insurer?because?of?an?accident?which?occurred?when?the?insured’s?automobile?was?driven?by?a?fourteen-year-old?boy.?The?policy?excluded?coverage?when?the?automobile?was?driven?by?any?person?under?sixteen?years?of?age.?By?the?endorsement?coverage?was?extended?to?”any?person”?using?it?with?the?permission?of?the?named?insured.?It?was?held?that?this?provision?made?the?insurer?liable?to?the?plaintiff?because?at?the?time?of?the?accident?the?automobile?was?being?operated?with?the?insured’s?consent.

The?action?of?Swift?v.?Zurich?General?Acc.?&?L.?Ins.?Co.,?112?Cal.App.?709?[297?P.?578],?was?brought?by?a?named?insured,?against?whom?judgment?had?been?rendered,?against?the?insurer.?The?policy?included?an?endorsement?identical?with?the?one?before?the?court?in?the?Firkins?case.?It?was?held?that?the?insured?might?recover?the?amount?of?the?judgment?which?was?awarded?because?of?an?accident?in?which?a?minor?was?driving?the?automobile?with?her?consent,?notwithstanding?the?age?limitation.?The?recovery?was?not?upon?the?extended?coverage?agreement?but?under?the?[15?Cal.2d?31]?ordinary?policy?terms.?Because?of?statutory?provisions,?the?insured?was?liable?for?the?damages?resulting?from?a?collision?which?occurred?while?the?automobile?was?driven?by?a?minor?with?her?consent,?and?the?court?held?that?the?provision?limiting?coverage?to?persons?under?sixteen?years?of?age?had?been?superseded?by?the?endorsement?which?extended?insurance?to?any?person?without?restriction.

It?is?difficult?to?see?the?logic?of?this?reasoning.?Had?the?judgment?been?against?the?minor?driver,?as?the?endorsement?applied?to?”any?person”?without?limitation?as?to?age,?then?he?could?recover?against?the?insurer.?But?the?court?measured?the?liability?of?the?insurer?to?the?insured?by?reading?into?the?terms?of?the?contract?under?which?it?agreed?to?protect?him,?provisions?concerning?insurance?granted?to?a?third?person,?one?driving?the?automobile?with?the?consent?of?the?insured.

However,?that?presents?a?situation?entirely?different?from?that?of?the?plaintiff?in?the?present?case?who?must?recover?if?at?all?as?a?person?insured?by?the?omnibus?clause?but?not?by?the?policy.?Here?there?is?no?inconsistency?or?ambiguity?between?the?two?insuring?agreements.?”Where?the?terms?are?plain?and?explicit?and?the?meaning?clear,?courts?indulge?in?no?forced?construction?in?order?to?cast?a?liability?upon?the?insurer?which?it?has?not?assumed.”?(14?Cal.Jur.?446;?Maryland?Cas.?Co.?v.?Industrial?Acc.?Com.,?209?Cal?394,?395?[287?P.?468].)

When?the?accident?happened,?Votaw?was?not?riding?in?or?legally?operating?the?automobile?with?the?consent?of?the?named?insured;?it?was?Kin?who?was?doing?this.?Under?these?circumstances,?if?the?policy?was?then?in?effect?Votaw?was?covered?as?the?insured?named?in?it?and?the?extended?coverage?protected?Kin,?the?driver?of?the?car.?Reading?the?policy?of?insurance?and?the?endorsement?together,?it?seems?obvious?that?the?same?person?could?not?be?the?insured?under?both?agreements,?nor?could?a?person?insured?under?one?claim?the?protection?afforded?by?the?other.

On?the?other?hand,?it?seems?clear?that?the?insurance?was?not?in?effect?after?Votaw?sold?his?automobile?to?Kin.?The?California?Vehicle?Act?(Stats.?1923,?p.?517,?as?amended),?in?effect?at?that?time,?required?that?within?ten?days?after?a?transfer?of?the?title?or?interest?of?a?legal?owner?in?or?to?a?registered?automobile,?the?certificate?of?ownership?be?forwarded?[15?Cal.2d?32]?to?the?division?of?motor?vehicles;?thereupon?the?division?”shall?issue?to?the?owner?and?legal?owner?entitled?thereto,?by?reason?of?such?transfer,?a?new?certificate?of?registration?and?certificate?of?ownership?respectively?…?Until?said?division?shall?have?issued?said?new?certificate?of?registration?and?certificate?of?ownership?as?hereinbefore?in?subdivision?(d)?provided,?delivery?of?such?vehicle?shall?be?deemed?not?to?have?been?made?and?title?thereto?shall?be?deemed?not?to?have?passed?and?said?intended?transfer?shall?be?deemed?to?be?incomplete?and?not?to?be?valid?or?effective?for?any?purpose.”

This?section?does?not?purport?to?limit?or?restrict?the?ownership?of?an?automobile.?One?may?have?record?title?to?property?and?not?be?its?owner;?likewise,?transfer?of?the?legal?title?to?property?may?not?have?any?effect?upon?the?ownership.?The?statute?expressly?recognizes?this?distinction?in?providing?for?a?”certificate?of?registration”?to?the?”owner”?and?a?”certificate?of?ownership”?to?the?”legal?owner”,?and?affects?only?the?legal?title?to?an?automobile?as?distinguished?from?equitable?ownership?of?it.?(See?Sly?v.?American?Ind.?Co.,?127?Cal.App.?202,?207?[15?PaCal.2d?522];?Swing?v.?Lingo,?129?Cal.App.?518?[19?PaCal.2d?56];?Kenny?v.?Christianson,?200?Cal.?419?[253?P.?715,?50?A.L.R.?1297];?Pendell?v.?Thomas,?95?Cal.App.?33?[272?P.?306];?Goodman?v.?Anglo?Cal.?T.?Co.,?62?Cal.App.?702?[217?P.?1078];?23?California?Law?Review,?557,?562.)?Therefore,?although?by?Mr.?Votaw’s?failure?to?comply?with?the?provisions?of?the?California?Vehicle?Act,?supra,?the?legal?title?remained?in?him,?yet?Mr.?Kin?acquired?an?interest?in?it?which,?according?to?the?law?as?I?read?it,?relieved?the?insurer?from?liability?under?its?contract?in?the?circumstance?shown?in?this?case.

The?respondent?lays?great?stress?upon?the?statement?in?the?insurer’s?letter?concerning?the?endorsement?that?it?”provides?for?compliance?with?the?Owner’s?Responsibility?Laws?of?the?various?states?in?which?the?exchange?operates,?or?in?which?you?may?be?traveling?at?the?time?of?an?accident?involving?your?insured?car”.?This?comment?is?not?an?insuring?agreement?and?may?not?be?construed?accordingly.?If?it?may?properly?be?considered?for?any?purpose?it?adds?nothing?to?the?plaintiff’s?cause?of?action.

In?California?the?owner?of?an?automobile?is?liable?for?the?death?or?injury?of?a?person?or?for?damage?to?property?occasioned?[15?Cal.2d?33]?by?any?person?using?it?with?the?permission,?express?or?implied,?of?such?owner.?(Sec.?1714?1/4?Civ.?Code,?now?Vehicle?Code,?sec.?402.)?Under?this?statute,?which?is?substantially?the?same?as?those?of?many?other?states,?responsibility?is?limited?to?the?amount?of?five?thousand?dollars?for?the?death?of?or?injury?to?one?person?in?any?one?accident.?It?also?provides?”that?in?any?action?against?an?owner?on?account?of?imputed?negligence?as?imposed?by?this?section,?the?operator?of?said?vehicle?whose?negligence?is?imputed?to?the?owner?shall?be?made?a?party?defendant?provided?personal?service?of?process?can?be?had?upon?said?operator?within?this?state,?and?upon?recovery?of?judgment,?recourse?shall?first?be?had?against?the?property?of?said?operator?so?served”.

Under?this?statute?the?operator?remains?primarily?liable?for?all?damages?suffered?as?a?result?of?his?negligence.?The?owner?has?a?limited?responsibility,?which?is?secondary?in?the?sense?that?execution?of?a?judgment?shall?first?be?levied?upon?the?property?of?the?operator.?The?ability?of?the?operator?whom?an?owner?has?allowed?to?drive?his?car?to?respond?in?damages?is,?therefore,?of?much?interest?to?the?owner?in?many?ways.?Undoubtedly,?the?desire?of?owners?to?make?certain?that?any?persons?to?whom?they?entrust?their?automobiles?have?insurance?coverage?in?their?own?right?leads?insurers?to?adopt?the?omnibus?clause?as?a?standard?form.?By?a?policy?containing?that?clause?the?owner?has?provided?insurance?protecting?any?person?driving?his?automobile?with?his?permission.?With?such?a?contract?in?force,?he?has?complied?with?the?statute?by?making?certain?that?recourse?may?be?successfully?had?upon?the?operator?for?any?judgment?rendered?in?an?action?for?damages?suffered?by?reason?of?the?operator’s?negligence.

According?to?these?views?the?judgment?should?be?reversed?with?directions?to?enter?judgment?for?the?defendant.

CURTIS,?J.,

Dissenting.

I?concur?in?the?dissenting?opinion?of?Mr.?Justice?Edmonds.?It?is?conceded?by?the?majority?opinion?that?the?plaintiff?may?not?recover?under?the?policy?as?originally?written?as?he?was?not?the?unconditional?owner?of?the?automobile?at?the?time?of?the?accident,?he?having?disposed?of?the?automobile?to?Kin?under?a?conditional?contract?of?sale.?The?right?of?plaintiff?to?[15?Cal.2d?34]?recover?is?accordingly?predicated?solely?upon?the?terms?of?the?rider?issued?by?the?insurer?and?the?letter?written?to?the?insured?enclosing?the?rider.?By?the?rider?the?terms?of?the?policy?are?made?to?inure?to?the?benefit?of?all?persons?operating?the?automobile?”With?the?permission?of?the?named?insured”.?By?no?reasonable?construction?of?this?language?may?it?be?made?to?refer?to?the?owner?of?the?car?as?it?is?specifically?limited?to?those?persons?driving?the?car?with?the?permission?of?the?owner.?That?it?was?intended?by?the?rider?to?broaden?the?terms?of?the?policy?so?that?it?would?include?third?persons?and?third?persons?only?is?made?clear?by?the?terms?of?the?letter?which?definitely?states?that?the?rider,?or?endorsement?as?it?is?called?by?the?writer?of?the?letter,?provides?”for?the?extension?of?insurance?under?your?policy?to?others?who?may?be?driving?your?car?(with?your?permission).”?I?am?unable?to?see?how?this?language?which?purports?only?to?extend?the?terms?of?the?policy?to?third?persons?can?be?construed?as?a?waiver?by?the?insurer?of?the?terms?of?the?policy?which?relieve?the?insurer?of?liability?to?the?owner?of?the?car?if?the?latter’s?interest?is?at?any?time?other?than?a?sole?and?unconditional?ownership.