Court Opinion

ID: 9666846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:28:52.176422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.982184
License: Public Domain

DUPONT, Justice ad hoc
(concurring).
*883The cause of action herein is directed at (1) V. J. Mitchéll and (2) the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., as his liability insurer, in solido. Mrs. Pullen contends that her husband’s death was due to the negligence of Mitchell, an independent contractor, and that when Mitchell became liable under the law he was covered and protected against liability under an insurance policy issued by Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation which was then and there in full force and effect.
There is no dispute as to Mitchell meeting coverage requirements as specified under the heading “Definition of Insured” contained in said policy. There is disagreement, however, only as to whether or not ■the said exclusion provisions of said policy deprive the tortfeasor Mitchell and Plaintiff 'Mrs. Pullen from the protection and benefits of said policy of liability insurance.
An examination of the pertinent provisions of said policy reveals that an insured (obviously including both the named and also the omnibus insured) is not entitled to the protection and insurance benefits afforded by said policy only in those cases where the person negligently injured or killed by him is an employee of the particular insured who may be held liable on any obligation under the workmen’s compensation law.
Certainly, there are no words, contained mywhere in said policy, which recite, or could be interpreted to mean, that any insured, covered in the definition of insured in said policy, would not be protected against liability due to his negligence in. injuring or causing the death of a person not employed by him or to whom he is not obligated under the workmen’s compensation law. And words, providing for exclusions and exceptions in liability insurance contracts, must' be clearly set forth in the policy and cannot under any rules-of law or equity be'supplied by the court to enlarge or supplement the exclusion provisions of said policy.
It appears, therefore, that “since Pullen: was not in the employ of Mitchell and that as Mitchell was not liable for any workmen’s compensation benefits, the exclusions, relied upon by appellee have no application: and the omnibus coverage afforded Mitchell, is unaffected thereby.”