In Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Haynes (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 737 267 Cal. Rptr. 248, the Sixth Appellate District determined "whether Insurance Code section 11580.1, subdivision (a), authorizes an insurer to limit the insurance for permissive users to the limits set forth in Vehicle Code section 16056, subdivision (a), in situations where the named insured has obtained coverage in excess of the limits." (Haynes, supra, at p. 738.) In answering this question in the affirmative, the court concluded that language limiting the permissive user coverage in Mid-Century's automobile liability insurance policy was conspicuous and unambiguous. (Id. at p. 740) In interpreting the "E-Z Reader Car Policy," the court addressed the defendant's contentions that the limiting language in the policy was inconspicuous because the statement was not in the "Liability" section where a reasonable person would expect to find such information. (Haynes, supra, at p. 740.) The court explained, however, "the sentence is in the 'Liability' section of the policy." (Ibid.) In addition to this contention regarding placement of the exclusionary or limiting clause, the Sixth Appellate District also addressed whether the clause consisted of language that was clear and unambiguous. The court explained, "the language is susceptible of but a single interpretation: that coverage for persons other than the named insured and family members is limited as set forth in the Financial Responsibility Law." ( Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Haynes, supra, 218 Cal. App. 3d at p. 740.)