Opinion ID: 1704658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the on-the-job exclusion prevents coverage under the automobile liability policy as godfrey was an employee of a named insured.

Text: In the automobile liability policy issued to the YMCA, St. Paul agreed to pay amounts you and others protected under this agreement are legally required to pay for a covered bodily injury or property damage claim resulting from an accident involving the ownership, use, maintenance, loading or unloading of a covered auto. You means the YMCA as the named insured. The policy also contains an omnibus provision which defines other protected persons who will be provided coverage under the policy. The omnibus provision states: Who is protected under this agreement Anyone to whom you have given permission to use a covered auto you own, rent, or borrow. [1] St. Paul goes on to argue that, in spite of the fact that Schilling is an omnibus insured, the policy provides no coverage for on-the-job injuries, worker's compensation or injuries to a fellow employee. The relevant policy exclusions provide: Exclusions  Claims We Won't Cover Workers' compensation. We won't cover obligations that protected persons or their insurance companies have under workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, disability benefits or similar loss. Nor will we cover your obligation to retain money someone else paid because of bodily injury to an employee of any protected person. But this exclusion doesn't apply to liability you assume under a covered contract. On-the-job. We won't cover any claim for bodily injury to an employee of any protected persons arising out of his or her job. We also won't cover injury to a spouse, child, parent, brother, or sister of that employee[.] Injury to a fellow employee. We won't cover any claim for bodily injury to a fellow employee of any protected person arising out of his or her job. Although the trial court did not specifically state which policy provision it relied upon in granting summary judgment for St. Paul, it is clear from the authorities the court cited and the arguments of the parties in this appeal that it relied on the on-the-job provision. [2] St. Paul argues that because Godfrey was an employee of the YMCA, and the YMCA is one of any protected persons, the on-the-job exclusion applies and eliminates coverage where the injured person is an employee of the named insured under the policy. Schilling and Godfrey contend that the on-the-job exclusion exempts from liability coverage only an insured who is the employer of the injured employee, not an additional insured who does not himself employ the injured person. Basically, their argument is that the on-the-job exclusion precludes coverage only for an insured who was the employer of the injured employee at the time of the accident. Although the language in insurance contracts is to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against an insurer, that rule of construction applies only when the language of the contract is ambiguous. An insurance contract's language must be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning and a court cannot make a forced construction or a new contract for the parties. City of Fort Pierre v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 463 N.W.2d 845 (S.D.1990); Rapid City Regional Hosp. v. South Dakota Ins. Guar., 436 N.W.2d 565 (S.D.1989); Grandpre v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Ins. Co, 261 N.W.2d 804 (S.D.1977). Further, the scope of coverage of an insurance policy is determined from the contractual intent and the objectives of the parties as expressed in the contract. City of Fort Pierre, 463 N.W.2d at 848; Black Hills Kennel Club, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Indem. Co., 77 S.D. 503, 94 N.W.2d 90 (1959). The on-the-job exclusion states specifically that coverage will be excluded for claims of an employee of  any protected persons. It does not limit the exclusion only to employees of the named insured nor does it limit coverage only to claims of an employee of the protected person. The trial court did not find this language ambiguous, nor do we. Moreover, to find ambiguity in the policy and extend coverage to Schilling would provide more coverage to an omnibus insured than to the named insured who contracted for and purchased the policy. There is no language in the policy expressing an intent by the named insured to purchase more insurance coverage for an omnibus insured than it had for itself. In Birrenkott v. McManamay, 65 S.D. 581, 276 N.W. 725 (1937), this Court analyzed a similar provision when an employee was injured riding on a motorcycle driven by a fellow employee. The driver was found to be negligent and, when the judgment was returned unsatisfied, the injured employee attempted to recover damages under the employer's liability insurance policy. The employer's policy exempted from liability coverage employees of the assured. The injured employee argued that the exemption clause should be limited to exclude coverage only for the named insured. This Court held: Such an interpretation of the exemption clause would mean that the policy offered greater protection from liability to one who obtained the consent of the assured to use his vehicle than it offered to the assured himself. It is the opinion of this court that when the clause in the policy protecting any person operating the insured vehicle with the consent of the assured is invoked, that the person invoking said clause is placed in the same position as the named assured. Birrenkott, 65 S.D. at 583, 276 N.W. at 726. The exemption clause contained in St. Paul's policy is more explicit than the clause in Birrenkott. It specifically exempts employees of  any protected persons, not only employees of the assured. Although there is a split of opinion, a number of courts agree with South Dakota's interpretation. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 273 F.Supp. 851, aff'd 384 F.2d 37 (6th Cir.1966) (applying Iowa law); Maryland Cas. Co. v. American Fid. & Cas. Co., 217 F.Supp. 688 (E.D.Tenn. 1963), aff'd 330 F.2d 526 (6th Cir.1964) (applying Tenn. law); Farmers Elevator Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carl J. Austad & Sons, Inc., 366 F.2d 555 (8th Cir.1966) (applying North Dakota law); Kelly v. State Auto. Ins. Assoc., 288 F.2d 734 (6th Cir.1961) (applying Kentucky law); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co., 195 Kan. 603, 408 P.2d 596 (1965); Travelers Ins. Co. v. American Cas. Co., 151 Mont. 198, 441 P.2d 177 (1968); Industrial Indem. Co. v. Fidelity-Phenix Ins. Co, 83 Nev. 260, 428 P.2d 200 (1967); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Employers' Fire Ins. Co., 256 N.C. 91, 123 S.E.2d 108 (1961); Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass'n v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co., 426 Pa. 453, 233 A.2d 548 (1967); Associated Indem. Corp. v. Wachsmith, 2 Wash.2d 679, 99 P.2d 420 (1940). The clear terms of the policy exclude liability coverage for an injured employee of any protected persons. As Godfrey was an employee of the named insured, and Schilling was an omnibus insured, the exclusion for an employee of any protected persons operates to preclude policy coverage for Schilling as a matter of law.