State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Hartle (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 852 involved a policy of insurance which contained an exclusionary clause worded exactly the same as the clause in the instant case. State Farm issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to Hartle who became involved in an accident during the policy period. Bardelmeier was driving with Hartle's permission and with Hartle riding as a passenger. Hartle suffered personal injuries and filed an action against Bardelmeier. State Farm sought declaratory relief urging that the exclusionary clause of the policy relieved them of the responsibility to afford liability coverage to the permissive user Bardelmeier, relying on section 11580.1 of the Insurance Code which permits the exclusion. The court did not agree with the contention that the exclusionary clause was violative of the public policy of the State of California, and in violation of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution. The court said: "This argument is effectively countered by the recent Supreme Court decision in Schwalbe v. Jones ." Relying on the rationale of Schwalbe the court upheld the validity of the statute holding that it did not contravene the public policy of California. Such exclusions, said the court, if stated in unambiguous terms as required by State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jacober (1973) 10 Cal.3d 193 are valid.