Court Opinion

ID: 9571405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:31:33.028022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:24.652581
License: Public Domain

Quinn, J.
(dissenting). I cannot accept the opinion of Chief Judge Lesinski nor the result he reaches. The liability of Pedlow and Myers to Verrette, if any, arises from the accident and not from Verrette’s illegal employment. In Edward Stern & Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1921), 269 Pa 559 (112 A 865), the supreme court of Pennsylvania held an illegally employed minor to be an employee under an insurance policy issued by defendant to the employer. In the opinion appears the following (p 563):
“The illegal employment of a minor under 16 was an incidental and independent transaction; it was a distinctive thing, in no way primarily connected with the issuing or working out of the policy.”
*487As between the parties to the declaratory judgment  proceeding, the insurance contract must be interpreted from its terms without reference to the statutes relied on in the majority opinion. If this is done, the majority concedes that Verrette is not covered by plaintiff’s policy. In a similar fact situation, the supreme court of Tennessee in American Surety Co. of N. Y. v. City of Clarksville (1958), 204 Tenn 67 (315 SW2d 509), said (p 77):
“The ordinary and usual meaning of the word ‘employee’ is one who is employed by another and works for wages or salary without regard to whether the employment be legal or illegal.”
In addition, the record discloses lessee Myers was responsible for all labor. He hired Verrette, and Myers is not a party to the insurance contract.
I hold that William Verrette was a farm employee excluded from coverage by the terms of the insurance policy.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.