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.…