Does the term "additional insured automobile" in the terms "regular use" apply to an additional insured automobile policy?

Nor are any of the other cases cited by the parties dispositive. Although the policy in Interinsurance Exchange v. Smith (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1128, 196 Cal.Rptr. 456, cited by respondent, defined "additional insured automobile" in terms identical to the policy in this case (148 Cal.App.3d at p. 1131, fn. 1, 196 Cal.Rptr. 456), the focus of that case was the proper interpretation of the term "regular use." (148 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1133-1137, 196 Cal.Rptr. 456.)

Appellant cites Crane v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., supra, 5 Cal.3d at page 115, 95 Cal.Rptr. 513, 485 P.2d 1129, in . support of her contention that the policy should be read as she, a lay person, understood it, not as an attorney or insurance expert might analyze it. ³ She contends any lay person would believe the policy provides coverage under the circumstances of this case.