Benoit

This case was submitted to the lower court upon an agreed statement of facts which sets forth that the appellant company issued a policy of insurance to James P. Lutfy on an automobile owned by him; that said person gave his express- consent to his brother William P. Lutfy to drive his ear, and, while William was so operating the machine, he injured appellee; that at the time of the accident William had neither a permanent nor temporary operator’s license as required by the laws of Arizona; that he was afflicted with “tunnel vision,” whereby the scope of his vision was narrowed and restricted to a limited section, but this limited vision was unknown to James Lutfy; that suit in the state court against the brothers resulted'in a directed verdict for the owner James and a verdict against William in the sum of $16,506; that execution was issued and returned wholly unsatisfied; that the insurance policy in suit contained an extended coverage clause, reading: “In addition to the Assured named in this policy such insurance as is granted under Item 6 and/or Item 7 shall be available, in the same manner and under the same conditions and to the same extent as it is available to the Assured…