(dissenting) :
I do not agree that the language of the policy in this case or the controlling statute requires the construction adopted *403in the majority opinion, and therefore dissent. The following from the order of the trial judge, in my opinion, is the correct disposition of the issues:
“The policy of insurance issued by the defendant included the following:
Persons Insured: The following are insureds under Part I:
(a) with respect to the owned automobile,
(1) the named insured and any resident of the same household,
(2) any other person using such automobile with the permission of the named insured, provided his actual operation of (if he is not operating) his other actual use thereof is within the scope of such permission, and
(3) any other person or organization but only with respect to his or its liability because of acts or omissions of an insured under (a) (1) or (2) above;
“The term ‘insured’ is defined by statute in South Carolina and the definition in defendant’s policy must be construed as being at least as broad as the statutory definition.” Pacific Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 247 S. C. 282, 147 S. E. (2d) 273. The South Carolina statute is as follows:
“46-750.31 (2). The term ‘insured’ means the named insured, and, while resident of the same household, the spouse of any such named insured and relatives of either, while in a motor vehicle or otherwise, and any person who uses, with the consent, expressed or implied, of the named insured, the motor vehicle to which the policy applies and a guest in such motor vehicle to which the policy applies or the personal representative of any of the above.”
The plaintiffs urge that Gloria had equitable title to the Renault and that consequently she had the implied permission of her parents to permit others to drive. The writer does not agree. Mr. Dearybury bought the car for his daughter with his funds with the intention that it should be *404used primarily by and for her. However, this gave her no species of title. Her father could have sold the car at any time and pocketed the proceeds. This situation is not to be likened to one where an employed minor pays for an automobile and takes title in his parent’s name for reasons of convenience. Gloria had possession of the Renault as a permittee and not as an owner.
This case is not, however, to be decided on the basis of such cases as Rakestraw v. Allstate Ins. Co., 238 S. C. 217, 119 S. E. (2d) 746, and Eagle Fire Co. v. Mullins, 238 S. C. 272, 120 S. E. (2d) 1, where a first permittee turned the insured vehicle over to a third party to use for his sole purpose. Neither is it to be decided on the basis of such a case as Crenshaw v. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co., 246 S. C. 549, 144 S. E. (2d) 810, where the first permittee, an employee, was using the vehicle outside the scope of his employment and far beyond the limits of his permission.
In the instant case Gloria had general and standing permission to use the Renault to go to school and to use it for her pleasure and convenience. There is no question that Gloria was acting within the scope of her permission when she used the Renault on the afternoon in question to take young Albert for a joy ride. Had an accident occurred while she was driving, the defendant’s policy would have afforded coverage on either of two grounds: vis., (1) as a resident of the same household and (2) as one using the vehicle with the consent of the named insured. Did coverage cease when young Albert slipped under the wheel ?
Mr. Dearybury testified that he had bought the Renault for his daughter’s use and that he had told her to use good judgment. He denied that he had told Gloria not to let anyone else drive. However, this was contradicted by Mr. Ed Nelson, an adjuster, who testified that Mr. Dearybury had told him that young Albert did not have permission to drive and that he had told Gloria not to let anyone drive. *405Consequently, in passing on the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment n. o. v. it must be assumed that Gloria had been told by her father not to permit anyone else to operate the automobile and that she violated this instruction when she allowed young Albert to drive. However, despite this, the fact remains that the automobile was being used for her purpose at the time of the accident. Therefore this case is to be considered as one in which the first permittee, in violation of instructions, has allowed a second permittee to drive, but in which the use to which the automobile was being put was within the scope of the original permission. In such a situation the writer feels that coverage is afforded under the statutory definition set out above. In other words young Albert, in the presence of Gloria and for her pleasure, was using the Renault for a permitted purpose. It is the permission to use and not the permission to operate which is controlling.
This is confessedly a liberal or broad construction of the omnibus clause but public policy seems to favor such a construction and there is ample authority to sustain it. A long annotation is to be found in 4 A. L. R. (3d) beginning at page 10. The writer of this annotation cites many cases both sustaining and disallowing coverage but it appears that the greater weight of authority is in favor of coverage. Special attention is called to Secs. 12 and 14 of the Annotation.
On the question of whether Gloria, in violation of her father’s instructions, could permit another to drive while she remained as a passenger and thereby bring such third party within the coverage of her father’s policy, we find an interesting analogy in the development of the family purpose doctrine in South Carolina, There can be little doubt that had a third party been injured there would have been a cause of action against Mr. Dearybury on the agency fiction which underlies family purpose. Burbage v. Curry, 127 S. C. 349, 121 S. E. 267, and Norwood, v. Parthemos, 230 S. C. 207, 95 S. E. (2d) 168.
*406Young Albert was not a licensed driver and his operation of the Renault at the time of the accident was in violation of law. However, in the writer’s opinion, while this may be of great significance on the question of liability, it has no bearing on the question of coverage.
In the instant case, Mr. Dearybury having furnished the automobile for the use and enjoyment of Gloria and it having been operated by young Albert with her as a passenger, for her use and enjoyment, and within the scope of the initial permission, it is immaterial whether or not Mr. Dearybury had forbidden her to permit another to drive. Under such circumstances young Albert was a permittee so as to bring him within the coverage of the New Hampshire policy.
I would affirm the judgment under appeal.