【正文】 s insurance pany alleged that the policy provided for no liability to any employee of the insured while engaged in the business of the Assured . . . or to any person to whom the Assured may be held liable under any Workmen39。 pensation, and that this result is pelled by the state39。s pensation law, or 2) other employment by the insured. n82 The court again did not discuss the financial responsibility law, resting its decision solely on construction of the exclusion clause: The [exclusion] clause under discussion makes specific reference to workmen39。 pensation. n74 In some of these cases, the court simply decided the issue without mention of the state39。 pensation system and the employer39。 pensation and their employer39。s right to recover should depend upon whether the conduct of its insured was intentional or negligent. In order to acplish the objective of the law, the perspective here must be that of the victim and not that of the aggressor. . . . [The victim39。s intention to interpret the Financial Responsibility Act expansively was tested in a 1964 case, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roberts. n59 In that case Roberts and the victim had had a violent fight, after which Roberts pursued the victim by car and drove into him, pinning him against a stone wall. n60 Roberts39。 by 1968 every state except Massachusetts had a statute requiring the deposit of security. n33 Typically, security acts require drivers to file a report if involved in accidents causing personal injury or property damage over a certain amount. A state official reviews the report and determines the amount of required security based on the likelihood of damages arising from the accident. If a driver does not provide the required security within a statutory period, his license and registration are revoked. The driver can recover his license and registration by depositing the security, by showing proof of a settlement agreement, or upon the passage of a certain period usually one year in which no one files a lawsuit arising from the accident. n34 Security laws have been successful in encouraging many drivers to acquire automobile liability insurance, n35 but they are not without defects. Like the Page 4 14 Del. J. Corp. L. 1, * future proof laws, they operate only after an accident has occurred. If, as is often the case, a financially irresponsible driver has caused an accident, then, in the words of one mentator, the best that the law can do is to force him off the road while his unfortunate victim remains unpensated. n36 North Carolina39。s desire to lower premiums by contracting for limits on automobile insurance coverage and the state39。 Compensation Act. n18 The Act thus did not invalidate the exclusion clause pletely, but rather made its validity contingent on a showing that the injured employee was covered by workers39。 pensation benefits were available to Smith. n14 In an opinion by Chief Judge Vaughn, n15 the court agreed that the exclusion clause would be valid as written in the absence of a financial responsibility law. n16 The court, however, accepted Smith39。s injuries. n10 [*1229] The policy contained a clause providing: We do not provide Liability coverage for any person: . . . For bodily injury to an employee of that person during the course of employment. n11 Page 3 14 Del. J. Corp. L. 1, * The insurance pany argued that this exclusion relieved it from liability for Smith39。 pensation act. n5 In South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Smith, n6 the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that an employee exclusion clause is valid only if workers39。 pensation or his employer39。s automobile liability policy. ... TEXT: [*1228] North Carolina39。s automobile liability policy contains an employee exclusion clause, the employee potentially is without insurance protection if he is injured through the use of one of his employer39。Page 1 73 UMKC L. Rev. 199, * Page 2 14 Del. J. Corp. L. 1, * 16 of 26 DOCUMENTS Copyright (c) 1985 North Carolina Law Review North Carolina Law Review AUGUST, 1985 63 . Rev. 1228 LENGTH: 8130 words SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA LAW, 1984: VII. INSURANCE LAW: South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Smith: Employee Exclusion Clauses in Automobile Liability Insurance Policies. NAME: BRENDA JEAN BOYKIN SUMMARY: ... North Carolina39。 pensation system and the employer39。 pensation or his employer39。s desire to limit his premiums by contraction for exclusions from his automobile insurance coverage. One costsaving provision monly included in automobile liability policies excludes the insurer from liability for injuries to employees of the insured. An employee may be without coverage under either workers39。s workers39。s negligence had caused the freezer to fall. n9 South Carolina Insurance Company, which had issued Gore a liability policy covering the truck, brought a separate action seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not liable for Smith39。s motion for summary judgment, but the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the exclusion was valid only if workers39。s Workers39。s Financial Responsibility Act. In deciding the case, the court had to resolve the conflict between the employer39。s first accident. n29 [*1231] These early acts also did not reach many of the drivers who posed the greatest threat to the public. When a driver was unable to pensate his victim, the victim often had little incentive to report the accident or seek a judgment against the driver. Thus, the law often was never called into operation. n30 . The inadequacies of the early future proof financial responsibility laws led to the development of laws designed to provide pensation for all accident victims, rather than merely those injured after a negligent driver had his first reported accident. The first