Court Opinion

ID: 9448883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:47:53.379912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:35.471735
License: Public Domain

CASTLE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I would reverse. The policy issued by plaintiff provided:
“ * * * The insurance with respect to any person or organization other than the named insured does not apply: * * *
“(d) with respect to any hired automobile, to the owner thereof or any employee of such owner *
In my opinion Jacobs could have been an additional insured under that policy only if he were not Medsker’s employee. But he was, and the Indiana cases relied upon by the majority recognize that the same individual may act as an employee of more than one employer.
The policy provision is unambiguous. It excludes “any employee” of the owner of a hired automobile. The majority opinion, in effect, restricts the broad language of the exclusion to the narrow concept that it refers only to a person solely the employee of the owner of the hired automobile and who stands in no relationship to the named insured which would make the latter liable for such person’s acts.