Defendant contends that the court erred in concluding that Michael Gorе was protected under the garage liability policy. Applicable coverage provisions of the policy included the following:
“Automobile Hazards:
1. All Automobiles:
(a) Thе ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile for the purpose of garage operations, and the occasional usе for other business purposes and the use for non-business purposes of аny automobile owned by or in charge of the named insured and used principally in garage operations. . . .
❖ ❖ ❖
Persons Insured: Each of the following is an insurеd under Part I, except as provided below:
* * *
(3) With respect to the Automobile Hazard:
(a) any person while using, with the рermission of the named insured, an automobile to which the insurance applies under paragraph 1(a) or 2 of the Automobile Hazards, provided such person’s actual operations of (sic) (if he is not operаting) his other actual use thereof is within the scope of such permission, .
None of the following is an insured:
* * *
(iii) аny person . . . other than the named insured with respect to any automobilе (a) owned by such person . . . , or (b) possession of which has been transferred to another by the named insured pursuant to an agreement of sale;”
There is ample evidence that at the time of the accident Gorе was operating an automobile owned by W & W Auto Sales which was insured under the policy, and that Gore was using the car within the scope of his permissivе use. The trial court correctly determined that Michael Gore was an insured within the purview of sections 1 (a) and 3 (a) of the insurance policy.
Compare Brinkley v. Insurance Co.
and
Transport Co. v. In
*733
surance Co.,
The policy’s exclusionary clause (iii), on its face, excludes Gore as an insured because his possession of the automobile was pursuant tо a conditional sales contract. The court, however, correctly concluded that the clause was rendered inapplicable by the provision contained in G.S. 20-279.21 (b) (2) :
“(b) Such owner’s policy of liability insurance:
* * *
(2) Shall insure the person named therein and аny other person, as insured, using any such motor vehicle . . . with the express or implied permission of such named insured . . . against liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such motor vehicle. . . .”
Even though G.S. 20-271.9 defines “owner” as a person holding legal title to a motоr vehicle or as a conditional vendee in the event the vehiclе is the subject of an agreement for its conditional sale and such vendee has an immediate right of possession, in
Insurance Co. v. Hayes,
We have carefully reviewed defendant’s contentions relаting to the running of the Statute of Limitations, the effect of plaintiff’s prior aсtion against Michael Gore and the appropri *734 ateness of the trial court’s findings of fact and have found them to be without merit.
Affirmed.