In Gulf Ins. Co. v. Edgerly (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 334, a judgment for the insurer on a coverage issue was reversed. The trial court had held that a "minibike" came within the exclusion in a comprehensive personal liability endorsement to a homeowner's policy. The exclusion provided that "comprehensive liability coverage shall not apply 'to the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of (1) automobiles or midget automobiles while away from the premises or the ways immediately adjoining . . . .'" ( Id., at p. 336.) Supplementary definitions included a definition of "automobile" as follows (ibid.): "'(e) "Automobile" means a land motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer; but the term "automobile" does not include, except while being towed by or carried on an automobile, any of the following: any crawler or farm-type tractor, farm implement or if not subject to motor vehicle registration, any equipment which is designed for use principally off public roads.'" Equipment "designed for use principally off public roads" was thus exempted from the exclusion. The settled rule "that where policy provisions are reasonably susceptible to different interpretations, doubts must be resolved against the insurer" ( id., at p. 340), therefore, favored a finding that the minibike was designed for off-street use. In reaching the conclusion that the policy provision was reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that the minibike was not an automobile, as defined in the policy, the court said ( id., at pp. 338-339): "It is evident that the Lether minibike, if it is to be excluded from coverage under the policy must come within the definition of a 'midget automobile.' The term 'automobile' as defined in the policy does not include (if not subject to motor vehicle registration) 'any equipment which is designed for use principally off public roads.' The uncontroverted evidence was that the Lether minibike was designed for use off public roads; it had no taillight, headlight, or turn signal indicators. It could not have been legally operated on the road. As an off road vehicle, at the time of the accident the minibike was not subject to motor vehicle registration. ( Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 177 Cal.App.2d 448, 454.) It thus was not an 'automobile' as contemplated by the policy." The court does not describe all the "uncontroverted evidence . . . that the Lether minibike was designed for use off public roads . . . ." (Id., at p. 338.)