How have courts interpreted language in the context of an underwritten Family Protection Policy?

4 In defense of the language used by the insurer it should be noted that the first statutory requirement that accidents caused by uninsured motorists be covered was effective September 18, 1959 (Stats.1959, ch. 817, 1, p. 2835). The type of insurance adopted in that statute was previously underwritten under the title 'Family Protection,' presumably because it covered, as was subsequently required under the statute, 'the named insured, and the spouse of the named insured and relatives of either while residents of the same household' ( 11580.2) or a class similarly defined. (See, Lewis v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. (1962) 207 Cal.App.2d 160, 163, 24 Cal.Rptr. 388, 390.) If the matter of ambiguity were one of first impression, the following language from Lewis might be deemed controlling, 'The named insureds are not parties herein, and although one of them was called as a witness, he was not asked whether or not he understood the meaning or effect of any provision of the policy. The trial court was clearly justified in refusing to create such a patently artificial ambiguity where none in fact existed solely to permit a third party to recover against the insurer.' (Id.)