policy. On December 15, 1937, an Additional Interest Endorsement was added to the policy, providing as follows: "It is agreed that the policy to which this Endorsement is attached is extended to cover the interest of the Pennsylvania Sugar Company in connection with any injuries sustained by employees of S.C. Loveland Company, Inc. to the extent of liability under the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act [77 P.S.Pa. § 1 et seq.] and the benefits provided thereunder. It is extended also to include liability under the United States Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act [ 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.] and the benefits provided thereunder."
While all the above policies were in force, one Stephen Novaella, an employee of S.C. Loveland Company, Inc., acting in the scope is his comployment on Pier 46 North, on the premises of the Pennsylvania Sugar Company, sustained serious personal injuries as a result of the negligence of an employee of the Pennsylvania Sugar Company who was operating a crane. Novaella brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 899) against the Pennsylvania Sugar Company, and on October 21, 1940 judgment was entered in favor of Novaella in the sum of $8,000 by Judge Kirkpatrick
The suit was defended by the plaintiff insurance company which paid the judgment. The defendant insurance company disclaimed all liability and refused to partake in the defense of Novaella's suit.
The defendant insurance company, under its workmen's compensation policy, paid Novaella workmen's compensation, and has been reimbursed to the extent of $1,800 from the recovery made by Novaella in his suit. It has also been credited with an additional $3,100 out of the proceeds of the $8,000 judgment.
The plaintiff is now calling upon the defendant for contribution.
In my opinion, the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff either on its public liability or workmen's compensation policies.
The rider attached to defendant's public liability policy provided that: "* * * such insurance as is afforded by this policy * * * also applies with respect to the interest * * * (of) the Pennsylvania Sugar Company." (Emphasis supplied.)
The insurance "provided by the policy" expressly excluded employees of S.C. Loveland Company, Inc. The coverage to the Pennsylvania Sugar Company was therefore subject to the same exclusion or exception.
The general principles of construction of riders are well stated in Couch on Insurance, Vol. 1, § 159: "When, however, a lawful rider is properly made part of the policy, it supersedes the policy, especially so, where the obvious intention of the rider is to substitute its conditions, exceptions, and provisos for those of the policy, or its terms are inconsistent and irreconcilable with the terms of the policy. But if the rider is not irreconcilable with the printed clause, such clause must stand, since a rider supersedes the policy only when it is expressly substituted for the terms of the policy itself, or inconsistent therewith. And a rider purporting to modify the effect of a particular clause should be confined to such clause, and not be regarded as applicable to other provisions of the contract, it being clear that a rider may be so limited that it will apply only to certain clauses or provisions."
The defendant's workmen's compensation policy can avail the plaintiff nothing, since what the plaintiff paid to Novaella was not for workmen's compensation but for the common-law liability of Pennsylvania Sugar Company. The rider attached to the workmen's compensation policy was "* * * extended to cover the interest of the Pennsylvania Sugar Company in connection with any injuries sustained by employees of S.C. Loveland Company, Inc. to the extent of liability under the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act and the benefits provided thereunder."
To convert this policy into a general indemnity agreement for the benefit of the Pennsylvania Sugar Company would mean the rewriting of the policy or the reading into it of something which it does not contain.
Plaintiff contends that unless contribution is enforced the riders are meaningless. This argument is fallacious. The riders gave the Pennsylvania Sugar Company the identical protection that S.C. Loveland Company, Inc., had -- no more, and no less.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.