
    CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 96-1448.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Jan. 6, 1997.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1997.
    Steven A Werber and Tracy S. Carlin, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    
      Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tu-tan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee.
   PADOVANO, Judge.

Southern Contractors, Inc., agreed with Container Corporation of America to install a vacuum pump on a paper machine at a plant operated by Container in Femandina Beach. The agreement required the purchase of insurance, and Southern complied with this provision by procuring an insurance policy from Maryland Casualty Company. A subsequent endorsement to the policy added Container as an additional insured. When a Southern employee filed a negligence action against Container for injuries he sustained on the grounds of Container’s plant, Maryland initiated a declaratory judgment action to settle the issue of coverage. The trial court held that the policy did not provide coverage for Container’s own negligence and granted a summary judgment for Maryland. We conclude that this decision is correct and therefore affirm. The agreement between Southern and Container required Southern to “indemnify, defend, save and hold [Container] harmless from any and all costs, damages and liabilities incurred or arising as a result of the performance by [Southern] of its duties [under the agreement].” This provision makes it clear that the scope of the insurance coverage was limited to acts or omissions by Southern, not Container. The endorsement adding Container was intended to insure a risk for which Container might be vicariously liable, and it cannot be interpreted to provide coverage for Container’s own negligence.

AFFIRMED.

JOANOS, J., concurs.

WOLF, J., dissents with written opinion.

WOLF, Judge, dissenting.

Container Corporation (Container) was named an additional insured under the general liability policy of Southern Contractors, Inc. (Southern). The policy contains no language which limits Container’s coverage to liability assumed pursuant to the contract, nor does the policy specifically reference the contract document. The only language limiting Container’s coverage is contained in the rider naming Container as an additional insured: “[I]nterest for operations at operations site by Southern Contractors, Inc.” This language is vague and does not limit Container’s coverage to only those situations where it is determined to be vicariously liable for Southern’s actions. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Penn America Ins. Co., 654 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Questions of material fact remain whether the injury arose out of the operations of Southern and what constituted the operations site. Summary judgment was improperly granted.  