In Hurst v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 266 Ga. 712, 716 (4) (470 S.E.2d 659) (1996), the Supreme Court found: The exclusion at issue is susceptible of three logical and reasonable interpretations: that the user must be authorized by law to drive in order to reasonably believe he is entitled to use a vehicle; that the user must have the consent of the owner or apparent owner in order to reasonably believe he is entitled to use the vehicle; or, that the user must have both consent and legal authorization in order to be entitled to use the vehicle. The number of reasonable and logical interpretations makes the clause ambiguous, and the statutory rules of construction require that we construe the ambiguous clause against the insurer. O.C.G.A. 13-2-2 (5). Accordingly, we adopt the interpretation least favorable to the insurer and determine that the clause excludes from coverage only those non-owner drivers who use a vehicle without a reasonable belief that they had the permission of the owner or apparent owner to do so. Id. at 716-717 (4).