Frederick

This appeal from a declaratory judgment comes to us by way of an agreed statement pursuant to rule 6 (a) of the California Rules of Court. The essential facts are not in dispute.

Karl Frederick, Jr. (Frederick), appellant herein, owned a 1960 half-ton pickup truck, which was licensed as a eommer *778 cial vehicle but which he used for personal purposes. He owned no other vehicle. He testified that the truck “was used . . . solely to drive to and from work, for camping trips and to carry [his] skindiving equipment. ’ ’ The truck was not used in his work.

On August 26, 1961, Frederick, being an occupant, permitted Paul 0. Edwards III (Edwards) to drive the truck. Frederick and Edwards were injured when Edwards drove the truck off the road into an embankment.

Frederick was the named insured under a public liability automobile insurance policy covering the truck. The policy had been issued to him by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). Edwards’ father had a policy covering Edwards’ liability substantially similar to the Farmers policy issued by Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Company of America, (Factory Mutual). This latter policy was limited in coverage to a “private…

I concur in the affirmance of the judgment as to Factory Mutual but I disagree with the opinion of the majority with respect to the liability of respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange under its contract of insurance with appellant Frederick, the named insured. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in my opinion because it correctly decides that appellant is validly and effectively excluded from indemnity coverage for his own personal injuries.

*786 Statement of Issues

The determinative questions presented by this appeal with respect to respondent Farmers are clear-cut and may be stated and answered very simply:

In Part I of the contract under the heading “Exclusions Under Part I,” the following provision appears: “This policy does not apply ... to bodily injury to the insured . . .” Appellant contends (1) that this exclusionary provision does not apply in this case because Edwards, the driver, is an additional insured under the policy and entitled to its protection; and (2) that the exclusion is contrary to public policy and “is invalid and void under Vehicle Code section 16451. ’ ’

Although the majority opinion expressly refrains from deciding that such an…

Ives, Kirwan & Dibble and Eugene S. Ives for Cross-defendants and Respondents.

This appeal from a declaratory judgment comes to us by way of an agreed statement pursuant to rule 6(a) of the California Rules of Court. The essential facts are not in dispute.

Karl Frederick, Jr. (Frederick), appellant herein, owned a 1960 half-ton pickup truck, which was licensed as a commercial vehicle but which he used for personal purposes. He owned no other vehicle. He testified that the truck "was used ... solely to drive to and from work, for camping trips and to carry [his] skindiving equipment." The truck was not used in his work.

On August 26, 1961, Frederick, being an occupant, permitted Paul C. Edwards III (Edwards) to drive the truck. Frederick and Edwards were injured when Edwards drove the truck off the road into an embankment.

Frederick was the named insured under a public liability automobile insurance policy covering the truck. The policy had been issued to him by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). Edwards' father had a policy covering Edwards' liability substantially similar to the Farmers policy issued by Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Company of America,…