Woollum

This appeal from a judgment in declaratory relief construing the exclusion provisions of an automobile insurance policy presents the constantly recurring issue of whether the particular exclusion clause is “plain, clear and conspicuous” so as to be effective, or is “ambiguous” so as not to deny coverage. Noting that a flood of prior decisional law establishes only that ambiguity lies in the eyes of the beholder and that the vision of judicial beholders differs, we seek the guidance of an unclear body of law previously applied in situations similar to that involved in the case at bench. Aware that the continued vitality of this opinion probably depends upon whether beholder Justice Matthew Tobriner (No) or beholder Justice Raymond Sullivan (Yes) is able to command a majority of his other colleagues on the California Supreme Court (see e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jacober, 10 Cal.3d 193 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 514 P.2d 953 ]; Schwalbe v. Jones, 14 Cal.3d 1 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 534 P.2d 73 ], rehg. granted), we conclude that the exclusion clause here considered meets the test of “plain, clear and conspicuous.”

The case at bench reaches us on what is in effect an…