Ms. Perets for a rental car, as she is not a named insured or spouse
of a named insured. She is listed as a driver and has coverage
available if she is driving her father’s car, but not a rental car.
 Respondent’s counsel points out that a listed driver such
as Ms. Perets would have coverage available for a rental car if
her father, in purchasing the insurance policy, had not only
listed her as a driver but had purchased extra coverage under
OPCF 27. That endorsement to the policy is entitled “Liability
for Damage to Non-Owned Automobile(s), and Other Coverages
When Insured Persons Drive, Rent or Lease Other Automobiles”,
and it provides insurance coverage for listed drivers in precisely
the situation that Ms. Perets finds herself. As its name suggests,
this endorsement would make insurance available to her where
it is not otherwise available under the terms of OAP 1. It is an
extra endorsement that is over and above the standard terms of
the OAP 1.
 It is the respondent’s position that OPCF 27 would not
exist if OAP 1 already covered liability for damage caused when
driving, renting or leasing automobiles that the named insured
does not own. It is hard to disagree with this logic. Any other
interpretation makes OPCF 27 a redundant endorsement that is
inapplicable to all situations.
 Counsel for the applicant says that this is precisely the
effect of OPCF 27. He refers to it as a “cash grab” by insurance
companies in that it sells to unsuspecting insureds a form of
coverage which is superfluous and which they will never need.
 In order to agree with the applicant, I would have to
conclude that the Act is inconsistent with (and therefore overrides) the express, standard terms of OAP 1, and that OPCF 27,
a standard form of endorsement available to insureds, is nonsensical as it can never come into play. This ascribes a great deal
of contradiction to the legislature that enacted that Act and to
the regulatory authorities that drafted the standard insurance
policy and endorsement forms. I would be adopting an interpretation that presumed that legislation and legislative instruments are hopelessly contradictory.
 On the other hand, in order to agree with the respondent I have to see the Act as being consistent with the terms of
OAP 1, with OPCF 27 being a meaningful endorsement to offer
to the public in the event that they want their listed drivers to
have increased coverage. This view ascribes logical consistency
to the legislature that enacted the Act and to the regulatory
authorities that drafted the standard insurance policy and the
extra endorsements thereto.