
    Syracuse Malleable Iron Works, Respondent, v. The Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant.
    
      Liability insurance — provision that policy should not cover injuries to employees caused by additions to, alterations in, or the construction or alteration of buildings — when insured may recover for injury to employees from fall of roof in course of construction.
    
    
      Syracuse Malleable Iron Works v. Travelers Ins. Co., 182 App. Div. 742, affirmed.
    (Argued October 13, 1920;
    decided November 16, 1920.)
    Appeal from a judgment entered April 1, 1919, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, in the fourth judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of -the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and directing judgment in favor' of plaintiff. The action was to recover upon a policy of liability insurance which provided that the declarations should be a part thereof. One item of the declarations provided that “ The employees to be covered by this policy do not make additions to, alterations in, or construct or demolish, buildings, structures or plant.” The policy provided that it should not apply to injuries to employees “ caused by making additions to, alterations in, or the construction or demolition of any building, structure or plant, unless a permit describing the work to be undertaken, signed by an officer of the company is hereto attached.” While employees of the insured, a manufacturer of malleable iron, were in the annealing room packing castings in pots to go into the ovens, a new roof in the course of construction by the insured to replace an old one destroyed by fire fell and injured some of said employees who were not at the time of the accident nor at any time engaged in the work of repairing the roof, or in any of the work of repairs. The contention of the defendant was that the injuries complained of were caused or sustained by reason of additions to, alterations in or the construction or demolition of the buildings' of the respondent and were not caused or sustained by reason of the business operations described in the declarations or by reason of ordinary repairs for the preservation of the machinery or buildings or the renewal of existing mechanical equipment, and that no permit to do such work was obtained by the respondent or attached to the policy as required by the foregoing provision.
    
      H. D. Bailey for appellant.
    
      Leroy B. Williams for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Hogan, Pound,, McLaughlin, Andrews and Elkus, JJ,  