How have courts interpreted automatic insurance provisions in the context of a motor vehicle accident?

In Birch v. Harbor Ins. Co. (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 714, 719, the court held that an automatic insurance provision provides "automatic coverage after the delivery of the newly acquired automobile during the period in which notice may be given, and that the requirement of notice is merely a condition subsequent which must be complied with in order to keep such coverage in effect beyond that period." The court explained, "At best, these provisions were somewhat ambiguous. A reasonable person might reasonably assume from the language used that automatic coverage of a newly acquired automobile was provided for 30 days, which would then cease in the event the required notice was not given. Under any other theory, no additional protection was given the assured and this provision would be meaningless and useless. If notice was required to effect any coverage, even during the 30-day period, the insured would be just where he would have been in the absence of any such provision. Without that provision he could apply for insurance on the other car and the company could accept or reject his application. If, as

Page 11