A woman, who fell and was injured while working in a gift shop, and her husband appealed from a trial court judgment that her employer's general liability insurance was not available to them for recovery of damages by virtue of the following exclusion:

"This insurance does not apply to bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his (her) employment by the insured or to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of the damage arising out of such injury."

The claimants argued that the employer, by failure to carry workers compensation insurance, waived the exclusive remedy afforded by the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act...."and have thereby exposed themselves and their general liability carrier....to private claims for damages." They relied on Harleysville v. Wozniak, Pa. Super., 500 A.2d 872 (1985) in support of their contention that the general liability insurance was applicable.

The appeal court noted that the cited case affirmed the applicability of "no-fault" automobile insurance to an employee who was injured while driving a vehicle owned by his employer. The Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act made provision for payment of basic benefits in such circumstances if the employer did not carry workers compensation insurance.

The court rejected the claimants' argument forthrightly. It found it extremely unreasonable to equate, in the face of the absence of workers compensation insurance, no-fault auto insurance, under which provision is specifically made for coverage of an employee, and general liability insurance, under which on-the-job injuries are specifically excluded.

For this reason and its finding that the general liability exclusionary language was not void as against public policy, the court concluded that the employer's general liability insurance was not available to the claimants. It made clear, however, that its decision did not preclude them "from seeking damages directly from the employer...."

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. General liability insurance could not be allowed as a substitute for workers compensation insurance.

(INMAN ET VIR, Appellants v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL, Appellees. Pennsylvania Superior Court. No. 03603 Philadelphia 1993. May 9, 1994. CCH 1994 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 4795.)