(dissenting):
I, too, respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
At the time of the accident, Janet C. Edmonds was operating an automobile that was owned by someone else. The automobile had been stolen from its true owner, but it is conceded that Mrs. Edmonds neither knew nor had reason to know the automobile was stolen.
The liability coverage provided by Mrs. Edmonds’ automobile insurance policy is extended by Section VI(3) to:
“. . ..any other land motor vehicle except a temporary substitute land motor vehicle while used by the Policyholder
“Provided . . . such other land motor vehicle:
(i) is not owned by such Policyholder . . .;
(ii) is not furnished for regular use to such Policyholder . . .;
(iv) is not stolen.”
The purpose of this provision in the policy is to extend liability coverage to a policyholder who is operating an automobile that is owned by someone other than the policyholder. Here, Mrs. Edmonds incurred liability while operating an automobile she did not own. She had not stolen the automobile and neither knew nor had reason to know it was stolen. In my view, this is the very situation contemplated by Section VI (3).
The result reached by the majority opinion would place a cloud on all automobile liability coverage. Every innocent *259policyholder who buys an automobile or is a permissive user risks having no liability coverage if the insurer can trace the title of the automobile to a thief.
I would affirm the lower court and extend coverage under" Section VI(3) of Mrs. Edmonds’ policy.