( Sincoff v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 11 N.Y.2d 386.) In Refined Syrups Sugars v. Travelers Ins. Co. ( 136 F. Supp. 907) cited by appellant, it is apparent that the elevator was owned, maintained and its operation controlled by the policyholder. Concur — Eager, J.P., Capozzoli and Macken, JJ.; McGivern, J., dissents in the following memorandum:
The New York Court of Appeals held that the insured was not entitled to coverage based on its policy because "[t]he insurance contract was drawn so as to put a prospective purchaser of insurance on notice that if he wanted elevator protection, he had to pay an additional premium." Id. at 368, 318 N.Y.S.2d 303, 267 N.E.2d 93 (quoting Refined Syrups Sugars, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 136 F.Supp. 907, 911 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)). In Ducks, an ice-skater sued the insured for an injury sustained while skating in the insured's rink.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed on opinion below, 136 F. Supp. 907, filed December 15, 1954.
Thus, if plaintiff desired protection against liability from its employees' occasional manual movement of the elevator car, it was available. "The insurance contract was drawn so as to put a prospective purchaser of insurance on notice that if he wanted elevator protection he had to pay an additional premium" ( Refined Syrups Sugars v. Travelers Ins. Co., 136 F. Supp. 907, 911). Plaintiff did not purchase the separately available elevator coverage, and, if its employee's use of the elevator is found negligent, it will not be entitled to indemnification from defendant under the policy.
The naming of additional insureds does not extend the nature of the substantive coverage originally given by the policy but merely gives to other persons the same protection afforded to the principal insured. See Sonoco Products Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co. 315 F.2d 126, 128 (10th Cir.); Refined Syrups and Sugars, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co. 136 F. Supp. 907, 910-911 (S.D. N Y), affd. per cur. 229 F.2d 439 (2d Cir.).
Compare the factual situation and the ruling of this court in Central Surety Insurance Corporation v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., supra. In Refined Syrups Sugars, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Company, D.C., 136 F.Supp. 907, 910, affirmed 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 439, an insurance policy with substantially the same wording and with the same arrangement of the description of hazards was construed. There an employee of a contractor was injured when struck by the counterbalance of an elevator.