# Votaw v. Farmers Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

> California Supreme Court · January 8, 1940 · 15 Cal. 2d 24

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538513

## Case

- **Full name:** J. E. VOTAW, Respondent, v. FARMERS AUTOMOBILE INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 8, 1940
- **Citations:** 15 Cal. 2d 24; 97 P.2d 958; 126 A.L.R. 538; 1940 Cal. LEXIS 186
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Curtis
- **Judges:** Shenk, Edmonds, Curtis
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538513

## Opinion text

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 *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 tlie 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 ear (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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538513. Public record. Not legal advice.