ss'n, 1956, 305 N.Y. 243, 112 N.E.2d 273; Universal Carload Distributing Co. v. Merchants Mut. Cas. Co., et al., 1957, 9 Misc.2d 177, 167 N.Y.2d 655; Greaves v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., 1959, 5 N.Y.2d 120, 181 N.Y.S.2d 489, 155 N.E.2d 390; Home Indemnity Co. v. Village of Plymouth, 1945, 146 Ohio St. 96, 64 N.E.2d 248; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Buckeye Union Cas. Co., Ohio Com.Pl. 1959, 160 N.E.2d 874; Montgomery v. Keystone Mut. Cas. Co., 1947, 357 Pa. 223, 53 A.2d 539; Ayres v. Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co., 1939, 172 Va. 383, 2 S.E.2d 303; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Tollefsen, 1935, 219 Wis. 434, 263 N.W. 376; Vick v. Brown, 1949, 255 Wis. 147, 38 N.W.2d 716; Buck v. Home Mut. Cas. Co., 1951, 258 Wis. 538, 46 N.W.2d 749; Sandstrom v. Clausen's Estate, 1951, 258 Wis. 534, 46 N.W.2d 831; McMann v. Faulstich, 1951, 259 Wis. 7, 47 N.W.2d 317; Zippel v. Country Gordens, Inc., 1952, 262 Wis. 567, 55 N.W.2d 903; Severin v. Luchinske, 1955, 271 Wis. 378, 73 N.W.2d 477; Matteson v. Johnson, 1957, 275 Wis. 615, 82 N.W.2d 881. "The true construction of defendant's policy is that no employee of the named insured engaged in the named insured's business can recover against anyone included as an additional insured."
We believe those cases are inapposite. Some are not fellow-employee cases. Matteson v. Johnson (1957), 275 Wis. 615, 82 N.W.2d 881 (the language of the exclusionary clause was worded to cover a three-employee situation; also in Matteson this court specifically reaffirmed Schneider); Zippel v. Country Gardens, Inc. (1952), 262 Wis. 567, 55 N.W.2d 903; Severin v. Luchinske (1955), 271 Wis. 378, 73 N.W.2d 477. Other cases cited by the appellant involved situations where the additional insured was excluded for coverage while insured was not excluded. Lubow v. Morrissey (1961), 13 Wis.2d 114, 108 N.W.2d 156; Narloch v. Church (1940), 234 Wis. 155, 290 N.W. 595; Lukaszewicz v. Concrete Research, Inc., supra.